i^'- 


-, — '% 


rC  12  1890  ^ 


BS.4 1L> 


AIDS  TO  SCRIPTURE  STUDY 


BY 


FREDERIC    GARDINER 

LATE    PROFESSOR   IN  THE    BERKELEY  DIVINITY  SCHOOL;    AUTHOR  OF  "  THE 
OLD   AND   NEW  TESTAMENTS    IN  THEIR   MUTUAL  RELATIONS  ;  "'    OF  COM- 
MENTARIES  ON    LEVITICUS   (in   SCHAFF's   LANGE),   ON   2    SAMUEL 
AND  ON   EZEKIEL   (iN   ELLICOTT's   COM.)  ;    OF   HARMONIES 
OF   THE   GOSPELS   IN   GREEK   AND    IN   ENGLISH  ;    OF   A 
DIATESSARON;    and   of   a   commentary   on   THE 
EPISTLE   OF  ST.  JUDE 


BOSTON    AND    NEW    YORK 
HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN   AND   COMPANY 

1890 


Copyright,  1890, 
By  C.  V.  GARDINER. 

All  rights  reserved. 


The  Riverside  Press,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  U.  S.  A. 
Electrotyped  and  Printed  by  H.  0.  Uoughton  &  Company. 


\ 


EDITOR'S  PREFACE. 


In  presenting  this  work  to  the  public,  a  few 
introductory  and  explanatory  remarks  seem 
necessary. 

The  book  was  prepared  several  years  ago, 
and  laid  aside  in  the  abundance  of  other  oc- 
cupation. It  had  been  the  intention  of  the 
author  to  take  it  up  afresh,  and  to  rewrite  it 
wholly.  He  had,  in  fact,  made  all  prepara- 
tions for  so  doing  last  summer,  just  before  his 
unlooked  for  and  lamented  death.  He  had 
gone  over  the  manuscript,  had  made  some 
changes,  and  had  indicated  the  places  where 
other  alterations  were  desirable. 

In  the  places  thus  indicated  the  editor  has 
felt  at  liberty  to  modify  the  text,  following  as 
a  guide  a  course  of  lectures  upon  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  which  were  delivered 
by  Dr.  Gardiner,  at  Newton  Theological  Insti- 
tute, in  1884.     In  other  passages,  it  has  seemed 


iv  EDITOR'S  PREFACE. 

to  him  proper  to  confine  himself  closely  to  the 
original  text,  except  where  he  could  be  guided 
by  the  lectures  in  the  use  of  forms  of  expression 
more  nearly  representing  the  mature  considera- 
tion and  deliberate  choice  of  the  author. 

No  apology  is  needed  for  publishing  a  work 
upon  a  subject  of  such  general  interest  and  im- 
portance, which,  moreover,  in  the  opinion  of 
several  eminent  theological  scholars,  seems  likely 
to  be  useful  not  only  to  students  in  the  semina- 
ries, but  also  to  the  ever  increasing  class  of 
earnest  and  devoted  students  of  the  Scriptures 
in  our  Churches  and  Bible  Classes ;  especially 
as  the  methods  suggested  have  been  approved 
by  long  use  and  experience,  being  those  which 
the  author  himself  was  accustomed  to  follow  in 
his  own  worli  and  to  recommend  in  his  class 
room. 

Some  hesitation  was  felt  in  publishing  a  work 
of  Dr.  Gardiner's  which  had  not  had  the  benefit 
of  his  scholarly  and  accurate  editorial  super- 
vision ;  but,  in  the  desire  to  continue  and  ex- 
tend his  usefulness,  and  in  the  confidence  that 
those  who  are  familiar  with  his  former  works 
will  attribute  any  errors  that  may  appear  to  the 


EDITOR'S  PREFACE.  v 

circumstances  of  the  case,  the  book  is  put  forth 
with  the  earnest  wish  and  hope  that  it  may  ful- 
fill the  purpose  for  which  it  was  written  —  "  Ad 
majorem  dei  gloriam." 

Henry  Ferguson. 

Trinity  College,  Hartford, 
May  5,  1890. 


PREFACE. 


Of  late  years  the  growth  of  interest  in  Bibli- 
cal studies  has  been  marked,  and  the  increase  of 
commentaries  has  been  most  noticeable.  There 
has  not  been  any  corresponding  attention  given, 
in  this  country  at  least,  to  the  systematic  treat- 
ment of  the  principles  of  interpretation.  In 
Germany  many  such  treatises  have  been  pub- 
lished since  the  days  of  Ernesti,  among  the  more 
recent  of  which  may  be  mentioned  those  of  Keil, 
Dopke,  Pareau,  Klausen,  Lutz,  Schleiermacher, 
Liicke,  Wilke,  and  Immer.  Some  of  these  have 
been  translated,  and  have  proved  of  great  value, 
especially  the  "  Hermeneutics  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment," by  Dr.  A.  Immer,  translated  and  edited 
in  America  by  Professor  Newman.  Something 
has  also  been  done  of  the  same  kind  in  France 
in  Cellerier's  "Manuel  d'Hermeneutique,"  and 
in  Great  Britain  several  treatises  have  apj^eared, 
among  which  may  be  mentioned  those  of  David- 


Viil  PREFACE. 

son  and  of  Fairbairn,  besides  the  discussion  of 
the  subject  in  the  course  of  more  comprehensive 
works  of  introduction  to  the  Scriptures.  Miru- 
scher's  "  Manual  of  Biblical  Interpretation " 
witnesses  that  the  matter  has  not  been  wholly 
overlooked  in  our  own  country.  Most  of  these 
treatises  have  been  upon  the  interpretation  of 
the  New  Testament  alone,  and  it  is  believed 
there  is  still  need  of  a  fresh  work  adapted  to  the 
habits  of  thought  and  study  of  the  American 
scholar.  The  present  volume  is  an  attempt  to 
supply  this  need.  Its  plan  is  so  different  from 
that  of  preceding  works  upon  the  subject,  that 
it  is  likely  to  be  marked  by  the  imperfection  of 
a  venture  in  a  new  path ;  but  it  is  hoped  that  it 
may  still  be  of  use  to  the  student,  and  may  open 
the  way  for  more  perfect  works  to  follow. 

The  Hermeneutics  of  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testaments  have  so  much  in  common,  the  con- 
nection between  them  is  so  very  close,  and  the 
details  in  which  they  differ  may  be  so  concisely 
treated,  that  it  has  seemed  wise  to  include  them 
both  in  one  work.  This  plan  has  also  the  ob- 
vious and  considerable  advantage  of  bringing  out 
more  clearly  the  essential  unity  of  Scripture. 


PREFACE.  IX 

The  discussion  in  the  Introduction  renders  it 
unnecessary  to  speak  here  of  the  view  of  inspi- 
ration taken  in  this  work :  suffice  it  to  say  that 
while  the  Bible  is  regarded  as  the  word  of  God 
in  the  truest  meaning  of  that  phrase,  it  is  yet 
written  by  men  ;  and  to  ascertain  its  meaning 
the  ordinary  laws  of  interpretation  must  be  re- 
garded. At  the  same  time,  while  the  historico- 
grammatical  method  must  be  everywhere  em- 
ployed to  ascertain  the  sense  of  Scripture,  it 
must  be  used  in  constant  remembrance  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  ultimate  Author  of  the  Scrip- 
ture teaching,  and  in  view  of  the  great  object 
for  which  that  teaching  has  been  made  known 
to  men. 


CONTENTS. 


crafteb  page 

Introduction 1 

PART  I. 

THE  PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

I.  Preliminary 64 

II.  General  Knowledge  of  the  Scriptures      .    73 

III.  The    Geography  and  the    Physical    Geog- 

raphy OF  Bible  Lands     ....        87 

IV.  The  General  History  of  Scripture  Times.    91 
V.  Archeology  and  Antiquities     .        .        .      101 

VI.   Knowledge  of  Natural  Science  .        .        .  107 

VII.  The  Religious  Preparation  of  the  Inter- 
preter          115 

Ylll.  Knowledge  of  the  Original  Languages    .    120 
IX.  Textual  Criticism 129 

1.  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament         130 

2.  Textual  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment         137 

X.  The  Personal  Qualifications  of   the  In- 
terpreter       149 

1.  Willingness  to  take  trouble       .      149 


xii  CONTENTS. 

2.  A  Judicial  State  of  Mind  .        .  154 

3.  Common  Sense  and  Sagacity  .        .      157 

4.  Reverence 159 

PART   II. 

THE   ART    OF   INTERPRETING. 

XI.  Preliminary 163 

XII.  The  Application  of   the  General  Know- 
ledge OF  the  Scriptures    .        .        .        .168 

XIII.  Knowledge  of  the  Particular  Book      .      177 

XIV.  The  Use  of  Geography  .        .        .        .        .183 
XV.  The  Use  of   History,    General  and  Par- 
ticular        192 

XVI.  The  Use  of  Archeology   and  Antiquities  209 
XVII.  The  Use  of  Natural  Science    .        .        .      222 
XVIII.    The  Use  of  the  Original  Languages,  and 

THE   immediate    CONNECTION  .  .  .    228 

XIX.  The  Use  of  Textual  Criticism.        .        .      254 
XX.  The  Interpreter  at  his  Work     .        .        .  260 


AIDS  TO  SCRIPTUEE  STUDY. 


INTRODUCTION. 

In  order  to  inter23ret  the  Bible  aright,  it  is 
first  o£  all  essential  to  determine  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  Book  with  which  we  have  to  do. 
It  is  a  book  which  is  neither  new  nor  unknown, 
and  it  is  therefore  entirely  unnecessary  to  deal 
with  it  as  if  it  now  met  our  eyes  for  the  first 
time.  On  the  contrary,  it  has  been  before  the 
world  for  so  many  ages,  and  a  certain  general 
interpretation  of  it  has  contributed  so  largely  to 
the  formation  of  Christian  civilization  and  so- 
ciety, that  many  things  may  be  considered  as 
fixed  by  common  consent.  Certain  points,  how- 
ever, still  remain  under  discussion  ;  and  as  these 
materially  affect  our  view  of  its  character,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  say  something  upon  them  before 
setting  forth  in  detail  the  principles  of  its  inter- 
pretation. 

Two  leading  views  have  been  and  continue  to 
be  held  among  Christians :  one,  that  the  Bible  is 


2fi  INTRODUCTION. 

the  word  of  God,  given  indeed  to  men,  and  com- 
municated through  men,  with  all  their  individual 
peculiarities,  but  so  guarded  by  the  providence 
of  God  as  to  be  absolutely  reliable ;  the  other, 
that  it  is  a  collection  of  books  written  by  men 
inspired  of  God,  but  yet  expressing  His  truth 
and  His  will  in  such  fashion  as  conceived  by 
themselves,  so  as  to  contain  many  serious  and 
important  errors.  In  other  words,  these  two 
views  are  commonly  and  tersely  expressed  by 
saying,  one,  that  the  Bible  is  the  loord  of  God  ; 
the  other,  that  it  contains  the  icord  of  God.  It 
is  plain  that  any  system  of  interpretation  must 
be  greatly  affected  by  whichever  of  these  views 
lies  at  its  foundation.  It  is  proposed,  therefore, 
to  discuss  this  question  as  an  introduction  to  the 
principles  of  Hermeneutics  which  are  to  follow. 

The  only  way  of  arriving  at  a  satisfactory  con- 
clusion in  the  premises  is  by  examining  the  facts 
as  they  are  presented  in  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves, and  basing  our  theory  upon  the  result.^ 

The  first  fact  to  be  observed  is,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures have  in  them  both  something  which  is 
divine  and  something  which  is  human.  This  is 
so  generally  admitted  that  it  is  not  worth  while 

1  The  substance  of  this  discussion  lias  already  been  printed 
as  an  aiticle  on  "  Errors  in  the  Sciiptures  "  in  the  Bihliotheca 
Sacra  for  July,  1879,  and  in  a  paper  read  before  the  Church 
Congress  in  Richmond,  Va.,  in  October,  188:?. 


INTRODUCTION.  3 

to  spend  much  time  in  its  reexamination.  That 
there  is  in  them  somewhat  that  is  divine,  and 
divine  in  a  higher  sense  than  Homer  or  Dante 
may  be  said  to  have  a  divine  element,  is  abun- 
dantly shown  by  the  work  which  they  have  done 
and  are  doing  in  the  world  ;  that  they  have  also 
somewhat  which  is  human  is  sufficiently  obvious 
from  the  idiosyncrasies  of  the  several  writers^ 
and  from  the  varying  style  and  manner  in  which 
they  have  delivered  the  message  entrusted  to 
their  care.  Yet,  inasmuch  as  both  sides  of  this 
fundamental  fact  have  been  called  in  question 
by  the  advocates  of  opposite  theories,  it  may  be 
well  to  point  briefly  to  a  single  and  satisfactory 
proof  of  each  of  them. 

That  the  Scriptures  have  in  them  something 
which  is  human  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  both 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments,  as  we  have 
them,  do  contain  undeniable  errors.  In  the 
New  Testament,  errors  of  copyists  —  most  of 
them  of  little  consequence,  but  still  errors  — 
have  been  brought  to  light  in  great  abundance. 
It  may  be  replied  that  these  are  matters  which 
human  care  can  rectify,  and  that  inspiration  was 
never  intended  to  take  away  from  man  the 
trouble  of  ascertaining  what  it  really  said.  This 
does  not  matter.  These  errors  remained  in  the 
text  unsuspected  for  centuries,  and  some  of  them 
still,  and  probably  always  wiU,  remain ;  for  no 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

competent  critic  would  pretend  to  say  that  the 
text  is  in  all  cases  now  definitely  settled,  or  that 
it  is  ever  likely  to  be.  In  the  Old  Testament, 
manuscripts  of  proportionate  antiquity  are  want- 
ing, and  the  best  and  oldest  of  the  versions  give 
but  a  poor  apparatus  for  the  criticism  of  the 
text.  Nevertheless,  we  may  become  certain,  by 
a  comparison  of  parallel  passages,  that  errors  ex- 
ist in  one  or  other  of  them.  For  example,  when 
the  census  of  the  captives  returning  from  the 
Babylonian  exile  as  given  in  Ezra  ii.  and  in 
Nell.  vii.  is  compared,  it  becomes  plain  that 
there  must  be  several  errors  in  one  or  the  other 
or  in  both  of  them.  Or,  if  we  put  the  statement 
in  1  Kings  iv.  26,  that  Solomon  had  forty  thou- 
sand stalls  of  horses,  by  the  side  of  that  in  2 
Chron.  ix.  25,  that  he  had  four  thousand,  it  is 
obvious  that  one  of  them  has  been  either  multi- 
plied or  divided  by  ten.  This  being  admitted, 
another  step  may  be  taken,  and  an  error  assumed 
if  absolutely  impossible  statements  are  found  in 
the  text ;  as,  when  it  is  said  (2  Sam.  xv.  7)  that 
"  after  forty  years  "  Absalom  did  certain  things 
in  furtherance  of  his  rebellious  plans,  while  it  is 
known  from  other  parts  of  the  story  that  Absa- 
lom's whole  life  was  less  than  forty  years.  And 
this  being  granted,  the  critic  will  not  hesitate  to 
apply  the  same  principle  to  other  statements 
having  such  an  extreme  degree  of  improbability 


INTBODUCTION.  6 

as  to  amount  to  a  practical  impossibility  ;  as 
when  it  is  said  that  the  Philistines  mustered  to 
battle  thirty  thousand  chariots  (1  Sam.  xiii.  5). 
The  errors  thus  far  spoken  of  in  both  Testa- 
ments are,  no  doubt,  mere  lapsus  of  the  scribes ; 
nevertheless,  there  they  are,  and  often  there  is 
no  other  than  conjectural  means  of  correcting 
them.  They  prove  that  there  are  errors  in  the 
Bible,  and  make  simply  impossible  the  extreme 
theory  of  verbal  inspiration,  at  least  as  far  as  the 
actual  Scriptures  in  our  possession  are  concerned. 
Only  undeniable  errors  have  been  mentioned, 
that  the  evidence  may  be  clear  that  there  is  a 
human  element  in  the  Bible.  How  far  does  it 
extend  ? 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  clear  that  the 
Scriptures  have  in  them  somewhat  that  is  more 
than  human  ;  for  they  contain  truth,  which,  out- 
side of  them,  man  has  never  discovered  for  him- 
self ;  and  if  any  one  is  disposed  to  argue  that 
man  might  ultimately  have  discovered  it,  yet  he 
certainly  did  not,  and  could  not,  at  the  time  at 
which  it  was  revealed.  It  is  not  necessary  here 
to  appeal  to  prophecy,  or  to  anything  else  to 
which  a  possible  objection  may  be  made ;  it  is 
enough  to  refer  to  the  broad  fact  that  the  gos- 
pel has  introduced  into  the  world  truths  un- 
known, or  at  least  unregarded,  before,  which 
when  announced  are  recognized  of  all  men  to  be 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

true,  and  has  given  to  these  truths  practical 
sanctions  of  sufficient  power  to  transform  the 
institutions,  culture,  and  principles  of  action  of 
those  parts  of  the  world  in  which  it  has  been  re- 
ceived. Nothing  but  religion  has  ever  had  such 
power  over  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men,  at  least 
on  any  large  scale ;  and  no  other  religion  can 
compare  with  the  Christian  in  the  assurance  it 
conveys  of  having  been  inspired  from  on  high. 
The  older  revelation  is  distinctly  recognized  and 
made  its  starting-point  by  the  new ;  and  besides 
this,  mankind  generally  have  not  failed  to  rec- 
ognize in  such  parts  as  some  of  the  Psalms  a 
spirit  and  aspirations  breathed  into  them  from  a 
higher  than  human  source,  because  they  com- 
mend themselves  as  in  harmony  with  all  that  is 
most  divine,  and  no  human  compositions,  except 
as  based  upon  them,  have  ever  reached  so  high 
a  strain.  The  evidence  in  this  case,  being  of  a 
higher  kind,  is  necessarily  less  tangible  than  in 
the  former ;  it  is  sufficient  for  the  present  pur- 
pose that  it  is  generally  admitted  by  the  com- 
mon sense  of  mankind. 

There  are  but  three  possible  theories  in  regard 
to  the  Scriptures:  first,  that  they  are  purely 
human ;  secondly,  that  they  are  purely  divine, 
even  to  their  minutest  detail ;  and  thirdly,  that 
they  are  at  once  human  and  divine.  The  first 
two  have  already  appeared  untenable ;  the  third 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

alone  remains.  Accepting  this,  a  most  interest- 
ing and  important  question  arises  as  to  the  re- 
lations or  proportions  of  these  two  elements  in 
the  Bible.  It  is  a  question  which  can  never  be 
entirely  solved,  any  more  than  it  is  possible  to 
draw  a  definite  line  in  the  complex  action  of  the 
human  and  the  divine  spirit.  The  two  elements 
are  there,  and  their  union  has  produced  the  ac- 
tual result,  without  the  possibility  of  assigning  to 
each  an  independent  part  of  the  work.  Both 
have  cooperated  in  the  whole.  It  may  be  com- 
pared to  the  doctrine  of  the  church  in  regard  to 
our  Lord,  in  whom  the  two  natures  are  insepa- 
rably (aStaipeVco?)  united,  though  without  confu- 
sion. Yet  even  in  this  case  there  are  limitations 
in  the  activity  of  either  nature ;  the  divine  na- 
ture did  not  prevent  Him  as  an  earthly  child 
from  growing  in  wisdom  as  well  as  in  stature, 
and  the  human  nature  did  not  hinder  Him  from 
speaking  as  never  man  spake.  In  regard  to  our 
present  subject,  it  is  of  great  practical  impor- 
tance to  ascertain,  as  far  as  may  be  possible, 
such  limitations  as  actually  exist. 

An  obvious  limitation  to  the  divine  element 
of  the  Bible  is,  that  the  inspiring  Spirit  has  not 
seen  fit  to  do  away  with  the  manhood  and  indi- 
viduality of  the  various  writers.  The  personal- 
ity, the  temperament,  the  habits  of  thought  and 
culture  of  each  particular  writer  are  manifest  in 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

his  writings.  The  same  truth  is  taught  by  John, 
Paul,  and  James,  but  in  such  different  guise 
that  they  have  been  imagined  to  contradict  one 
another.  No  one  can  fail  to  recognize  the  differ- 
ences in  manner  of  utterance  between  the  courtly 
Isaiah,  the  despondent  Jeremiah,  the  priestly 
Ezekiel,  and  the  princely  Daniel.  The  Scrip- 
tures have  certainly  been  given  TroXvfxepws  kol 
TToXvTpoTTo)?.  It  is  ouc  officc  of  these  differences  to 
adapt  the  Scriptures  to  minds  of  every  class  and 
mode  of  thought ;  it  is  essential  to  the  life-like 
character  of  the  sacred  narrative;  and  it  has 
become  an  important  means  of  determining  the 
genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  various 
books. 

Our  main  question,  however,  is  with  the  lim- 
itations of  the  human  element.  It  has  already 
appeared  that  there  is  no  such  limitation  of  this 
as  to  prevent  errors  of  "the  copyists  in  the  trans- 
mission of  the  sacred  records.  But  the  writers 
lived  in  times  far  apart,  and  all  of  them  long 
gone  by,  and  must  themselves  have  shared  in 
the  crude  and  erroneous  notions  of  their  times 
concerning  natural  science,  history,  ethnology, 
archaeology,  and  many  other  matters.  Have 
these  errors  become  incorporated,  through  the 
human  writers,  in  the  Bible  itself  ?  or  has  their 
humanity  been  so  overshadowed,  limited,  and 
controlled  by  the  inspiring  Spirit  within  them, 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

that  the  expression  of  such  errors  has  been  pre- 
vented? This  is  a  question  simply  of  fact,  and 
must  be  decided  by  an  examination  of  the  evi- 
dence. 

First,  let  it  be  distinctly  understood  what  is 
meant  by  error.  It  is  something  more  or  less 
false  and  wrong  as  proceeding  from  that  imper- 
fect knowledge  of  the  truth  —  whether  moral, 
mental,  or  physical  —  which  belonged  to  the 
times  in  which  the  writers  lived,  and  in  which 
they  unquestionably  shared.  Such  errors  are 
commonly  alleged  as  abounding  in  the  Bible ; 
and  if  this  is  true,  there  is  in  this  respect  no 
limitation  of  the  human  side  of  the  Scriptures. 
But  if  it  is  not  true,  then  it  is  obvious  that  there 
must  have  been  such  a  limitation  extending: 
through  many  ages  ;  and  the  Bible,  consequentl}^ 
presents  a  prodigy  quite  equal  to  any  of  the 
miracles  it  records,  and  similarly  makes  a  cor- 
responding demand  upon  our  faith. 

The  most  serious  errors  thus  alleged  are 
moral  contradictions,  —  instances  in  which  words 
or  deeds  are  commended,  or  even  commanded, 
especially  in  the  older  Scriptures,  which  are  in- 
consistent with  the  divine  character  as  made 
known  in  later  revelation.  Some  space  will  be 
devoted  to  these  farther  on.  Meantime  it  is  to 
be  considered  that  the  various  writers  speak 
freely  of  whatever  comes  in  their  way  in  the 


10  INTRODUCTION, 

language  and  according  to  the  ideas  of  their 
time,  and  that  those  ideas  and  that  lan2:uae:e 
were  often  wrong.  It  is  argued  by  many,  with 
apparent  fairness,  that  this  concludes  errors 
upon  the  Scriptures ;  because  the  writing  must 
be  interpreted  according  to  what  the  writer 
meant  to  say,  and  in  order  to  this  his  language 
must  be  examined  in  the  light  of  the  views  and 
opinions  he  is  known  to  have  held.  Is  this  rea- 
soning valid  ? 

Take  a  few  test  cases.  The  Bible  frequently 
speaks  of  the  rising  and  setting  of  the  sun,  and 
its  writers  undoubtedly  supposed  that  the  sun 
went  round  the  earth,  and  that  this  expression 
was  literally  true.  It  has  proved  to  be  untrue. 
Are  the  Scriptures  so  committed  to  this  error 
that  it  may  be  cited  as  one  of  the  scientific  er- 
rors of  the  Scriptures  ?  If  so,  the  case  may  at 
once  be  given  up  ;  but  if  not,  it  will  certainly  be 
hard  to  cite  a  clearer  instance.  The  lanofua^fe 
of  the  Bible  is  in  opposition  to  the  facts  of  sci- 
ence, and  the  writers  who  used  it  were  ignorant 
of  those  facts ;  while  the  Copernican  system 
was  under  discussion,  and  before  its  truth  was 
established,  it  was  generally  held  that  the  Bible 
was  committed  to  the  opj^osite  view.  Here, 
then,  are  all  the  elements  of  what  is  called  an 
error ;  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  statement  is 
false,  and  that  the  writers  who  used  it  believed 


INTRODUCTION,  li- 

lt to  be  true  ;  it  is  notorious  that  when  its  truth 
was  first  called  in  question  the  interpreters  of 
the  Bible  with  one  voice  assured  the  world  that 
the  point  had  been  definitely  pronounced   upon 
in  holy  writ,  and  that  no  other  view  could  be 
taken  without  a  flat  contradiction  of  the  Bible. 
Nevertheless,  the  opposite  view  was  established, 
and  nobody's  faith  was  disturbed.    It  was  found 
that  men  still  went  on   speaking  of  the  rising 
and  setting  of  the  sun,  although  acknowledging 
themselves   the    disciples    of    Copernicus.     The 
common   sense  of  mankind  has    settled  it  that 
there  is  no  error  here.     The   Scripture  writers 
merely  used  the  popular  language  of  their  times, 
and  of  all  times,  in  alluding  to  the  natural  phe- 
nomena  around    them;    Galileo  himself  would 
still  have  used  the   same  language.     This  is  a 
typical  case. 

Let  us  take  another  instance.  Moses  speaks 
of  the  coney  (^Hyrax  Syriacus)  as  unclean,  al- 
though he  chews  the  cud,  because  he  does  not 
divide  the  hoof  (Lev.  xi.  5),  and  so  of  some 
other  animals;  on  the  otlxer  hand,  the  swine 
(ver.  7)  is  accounted  unclean,  because  he  does 
not  chew  the  cud,  although  he  divides  the  hoof. 
All  this  is  wrong.  The  coney  does  not  really 
chew  the  cud,  but  merely  has  a  way  of  moving 
his  lower  jaw  which  gives  him  the  appearance  of 
doing  so ;  and  the  swine  does  not  divide  the  hoof, 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

because,  anatomically,  he  has  four  toes.  In  the 
same  connection  it  is  said  (ver.  4)  that  the 
camel  chews  the  cud,  but  does  not  divide  the 
hoof ;  but  anatomically  he  does  divide  the  hoof, 
only  he  has  a  large  pad  which  comes  down  be- 
hind the  hoof,  and  on  which  he  treads  ;  so  that 
the  description  of  Moses,  while  right  to  the  eye, 
is  scientifically  wrong.  In  general,  this  whole 
distinction  is  wrongly  taken.  Chewing  the  cud 
and  dividing  the  hoof  are  correlated  develop- 
ments, so  that,  as  far  as  science  has  yet  observed, 
all  animals  which  do  the  one  do  the  other  also, 
although  it  is  very  possible  that  exceptions  may 
hereafter  be  discovered  to  this  law.  Now  was  this 
an  error  on  the  part  of  Moses ;  and  is  it  an  error 
of  the  Bible  ?  Technically  and  superficially,  of 
course  it  is,  but  not  really.  Moses  himself  may 
very  likely  have  been  but  an  indifferent  com- 
parative anatomist ;  but  this  cannot  be  deter- 
mined simply  from  this  use  of  language.  He 
was  giving  a  law  for  popular  observance,  and 
must  necessarily  mark  his  distinctions  according 
to  appearances,  or  expose  the  people  to  be  con- 
tinually involved  in  transgression.  The  same 
thing  would  happen  now.  Suppose  a  modern 
legislature  wishing  to  pass  a  law  for  the  protec- 
tion of  blackberries,  raspberries,  and  other  small 
fruit ;  w^ould  it  not  describe  them  as  berries  ? 
Yet,  botanically,  those  named   are  not  berries, 


INTRODUCTION.  1^ 

while  the  grape  and  the  tomato,  which  undoubt- 
edly would   require   separate  provisions  in  the 
law,  are  scientifically  berries.     So  in  this  case  ; 
it  does  not  matter  what  was  the  extent  or  the 
deficiency  of   Moses'  own  private  information. 
The   exigencies   of   the   time   and   the   circum- 
stances  required   that   the    law  should    be   ex- 
pressed as  it  is,  and  it  would  have  failed  of  its 
purpose  had  it  been  set  forth  in  the  technicali- 
ties of  modern  science.     Shall  we  then  say  that 
such   errors   were   unavoidable,    and    therefore 
Scripture  must  contain  errors  which  betray  the 
imperfection    of   human   knowledge,   and    show 
that  the  human  element  was  not  so  limited  as 
to   prevent  error?     Or   shall  we  conclude  that 
before  the  highest  tribunal  these  are  really  no 
errors  at  all,  but  merely  the  condescension  of 
infinite  knowledge  in  making  itself  comprehen- 
sible to  men  of  limited  information  ?     For  our- 
selves, we  prefer  the  latter  alternative,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  Cuvier  or  Owen,  or  even  Mr. 
Huxley  himself,  with  whatever  superior  know- 
ledge,   must    still  have    used    substantially  the 
same  language,   if  giving  a  law  under  similar 
circumstances,  and  with  the  design  of  having  it 
observed.     But   really  the   question   is   merely 
one  of  words,  whichever  we  choose  ;  since  if  these 
are  to  be  called  errors,  they  are  yet  errors  which 
indicate  neither  faulty  knowledge  nor  the  neces- 


14  INTBODUCTION, 

sary  restriction  of  the  source  of  the  Scriptures 
to  the  human  imperfection  of  the  period  in 
which  they  were  written.  There  is  nothing  in 
these  to  show  that  the  writings  containing  them 
may  not  have  been  insjjired  by  perfect  know- 
ledge, adapting  its  revelation  to  the  imperfec- 
tions of  the  human  knowledge  of  the  time. 

Once  more,  to  take  an  instance  which  has 
been  the  occasion  of  endless  discussion  —  the 
cosmogony  of  Genesis.  Here  both  the  main 
fact  and  the  subordinate  details  are  necessarily 
beyond  the  scope  of  human  observation  ;  and 
both  the  one  and  the  other  must  either  have 
been  revealed,  or  else  must  have  been  the  con- 
clusion of  speculative  thought.  It  is  not  uncom- 
mon to  explain  one  of  them  in  one  way,  and  the 
other  in  the  other,  —  to  say  that  the  main  fact  is 
that  all  things  originate  from  a  divine  source  ; 
this  was  revealed  and  intended  to  be  taught ; 
but  it  was  left  to  the  writer  to  communicate 
this  as  best  he  could ;  and  he  actually  did  com- 
municate it  as  best  he  could,  in  accordance  with 
such  knowledge  as  he  had,  or  in  such  way  as  he 
could  best  imagine,  and  after  the  lapse  of  sev- 
eral thousand  years  his  information  has  proved 
to  be  faulty.  Now,  it  must  be  admitted  that, 
under  any  possible  exegesis,  the  account  itself, 
if  pressed  to  minutiae,  is  scientifically  inaccu- 
rate.    The  word  "  day  "  may  be  understood  (if 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

this  be  exegetically  allowable)  of  periods  never 
so  indefinite,  or  it  may  be  taken  to  indicate  only 
a  series  of  pictorial  visions  ;  the  phrases  "  Let 
the  earth  bring  forth  "  and  "  Let  the  waters 
bring  forth  "  may  be  taken,  with  Augustine  and 
many  others,  in  a  causative  sense,  in  accordance 
with  a  theory  of  spontaneous  generation  ;  still, 
the  palpable  fact  will  remain  that  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  higher  forms  of  vegetation  upon  our 
planet  was  not  completed  before  animal  life  be- 
gan, while  it  is  certainly  implied  by  the  story  of 
the  third  and  fifth  days  in  Genesis  that  it  was ; 
nor  were  the  highest  developments  of  aquatic 
life  known  before  terrestrial  animals  appeared .^ 
Here,  then,  as  in  the  former  cases,  there  is  error. 
It  is  not  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose  to 
say  that  this  error  is  in  a  secondary  detail,  and 

1  It  is  scarcely  worth  while  to  stay  to  notice  some  alleged 
minor  erroi's,  such  as  that  God  is  said  to  have  set  the  sun  and 
moon  in  the  firmament,  as  if  he  had  permanently  fastened 
them  to  a  solid  vault.  There  is  no  proof  whatever  that  the 
Hebrews  shared  in  the  conception  of  the  classical  nations  of 
the  expanse  (such  is  the  meaning-  of  the  Hebrew  word)  above 
being  solid ;  but  whether  they  did  so  or  not,  it  is  certain  that 
Moses,  or  any  one  else  of  sufficient  intelligence  to  have  writ- 
ten this  narrative,  must  have  known  of  the  motion  of  the 
moon  relatively  to  the  sun.  He  could  not  therefore  have 
meant  that  both  were  fixed  or  attached  to  a  solid  foundation, 
but  must  necessarily  have  used  the  Hebrew  word  in  its  ordi- 
naiy  sense  of  put  or  placed,  and  not  in  the  technical  meaning 
of  the  English  word  set. 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

is  comparatively  unimportant.  It  is  necessary 
to  ascertain  whether  the  detail  containing  the 
error  is  the  outgrowth  of  human  ignorance,  or 
whether  it  belongs  to  the  divine  revelation. 
There  are  reasons  for  thinking  that  it  could  not 
have  come  from  merely  human  reasoning  or  im- 
agination. The  account  is  too  good,  it  is  too 
nearly  scientifically  accurate,  to  admit  fairly  of 
this  supposition.  Among  all  the  cosmogonies 
of  which  we  know  it  is  unique  in  this  respect. 
The  best  accounts  of  the  creation  found  else- 
where have  probably  either  come  originally  from 
the  same  source,  or  have  been  modified  by  this. 
The  nearest  approach  to  it  is  the  Etruscan,  of 
which,  at  present,  we  know  only  through  the 
account  given  of  it  by  a  Christian  writer  of  the 
tenth  or  eleventh  century  ;  ^  and  this,  such  as  it 
is,  differs  exactly  in  the  point  of  being  less  in 
harmony  with  the  teachings  of  science.  The 
Chaldean  legends  of  the  creation  —  not  to  speak 
of  their  being  overlaid  and  interpenetrated  with 
a  mass  of  mythological  absurdity  —  have  plainly 
been  derived  originally  from  the  same  source 
with  the  story  in  Genesis,  and  cannot,  therefore, 
help  us  to  account  for  its  truth.^     Even  Knobel, 

1  Suidas,  Lex.  s.  v.  Tvpprjrta. 

2  Of  the  "Chaldean  Genesis"  it  has  well  been  said  by  an 
able  writer  that  "  though  corresponding  in  some  interesting 
particulars  with  the  Biblical  narrative,  [it]  lacked  precisely  tliis 


INTRODUCTION.  17 

after  recounting  these  and  various  other  cos- 
mogonies, says,  "  Of  all  these,  the  prize  belongs 
by  universal  acknowledgment  to  the  simple  and 
natural,  dignified  and  sublime  Hebrew  narra- 
tive." It  is  so  difficult  to  suppose  that  such  a 
cosmogony  should  have  been  the  result  of  merely 
human  speculation  in  the  remote  ages  to  which 
it  belongs,  that  it  would  be  much  easier  to  con- 
sider it  a  divine  revelation  throughout,  but  for 
the  errors  mentioned  above.  Let  us,  then,  look 
more  narrowly  at  those  errors  before  deciding 
that  they  are  inconsistent  with  a  revelation  from 
the  Omniscient. 

The  general  order  of  creation  is  given  with 
entire  accuracy,  —  first  chaos,  then  light,  then  a 
fluid  mass,  then  a  separation  of  the  dry  land 
from  the  waters,  then  life  beginning  in  its  lowest 
vegetative  forms  and  advancing  through  aquatic 

worth  and  reformatory  power,  [viz. :  in  purifying  countries  of 
idolatries,  and  sweeping  away  superstitions  ;  in  keeping  fresh 
and  fruitful  faith  in  one  God  and  the  common  parentage  of 
man].  "  These  traditions  of  the  creation  never  became  powers 
of  a  growing  religious  history.  They  are  like  stagnant  pools 
of  water,  themselves  choked  with  corruptions,  —  not  flowing 
fountains  of  life.  They  did  not  stir  and  cleanse  the  moral 
stagnation  of  Babylon.  The  vital  power  of  truth  to  create  a 
purer  and  growing  life  is  the  characteristic  virtue  of  the  very 
first  words  of  inspiration.  A  thoughtful  man,  with  the  Bibli- 
cal truth  of  the  Creator  working  as  a  moral  force  in  his  soul, 
became  the  father  of  a  nation  whose  end  is  not  yet."  —  Old 
Faiths  in  New  Light,  by  Newman  Smyth,  p.  74. 


18  INTRODUCTION. 

animal  life  to  terrestrial,  all  finally  culminating 
in  the  appearance  of  man.  The  celestial  bodies, 
sun,  moon,  and  stars,  are  mentioned  just  when 
they  must  have  first  shone  through  the  murky 
atmosphere  of  the  cooling  earth.  The  only 
difficulty  is,  that  when  the  beginning  of  vegeta- 
tion has  been  mentioned  its  story  is  continued 
without  break  to  its  culmination  ;  and  the  same 
thing  is  done,  also,  with  marine  life.  Is  there 
any  way  of  accounting  for  this  consistently  with 
the  supposition  that  the  whole  story  emanated 
from  Omniscience  ?  We  think  it  is  not  merely 
accounted  for,  but  necessitated  by  the  circum- 
stances of  the  revelation.  For  this  revelation 
must  be  given  in  such  wise  as  to  be  compre- 
hended by  a  rude  people,  and  therefore  must  be 
given  without  the  use  of  scientific  terms ;  and 
in  accordance  with  the  proportion  of  revelation 
it  must  be  given  very  briefly.  Its  purpose  is 
not  to  teach  natural  science,  but  to  show  that  all 
things  come  from  God.^     Whether  the  revela- 

1  And  thus  to  prepare  for  the  possibility  of  future  science. 
"  If  we  may  suppose  the  existence  of  a  Di^'ine  Instructor 
■whose  intention  it  was  in  the  course  of  time  to  open  to  the 
knowledge  of  man  the  secrets  of  the  earth,  and  to  educate  the 
world  at  length  into  a  thorough  conception  of  the  order  of  na- 
ture ;  then  we  may  say  that  he  gave  one  of  the  first  conditions 
of  that  knowledge,  and  provided  one  of  the  necessary  prepa- 
rations for  that  future  education,  by  freeing  the  mind  of  man 
from  subjection  to  the  powers  of  nature,  and  setting  the  hur 
man  soul  above  the  world,  as  itself  made  in  the  divine  image, 


INTRODUCTION.  19 

tion  was  made  by  vision,  or  by  whatever  other 
method,  its  object  could  hardly  be  otherwise  ac- 
complished than  in  the  way  it  has  been,  by  men- 
tioning in  succession  the  great  features  of  the 
world,  and  saying  that  God  made  each  of  them. 
To  have  said  that  He  made  first  the  humbler 
forms  of  vegetation,  particularizing  them  ;  and 
then  the  humbler  forms  of  animal  life,  particu- 
larizing these  too;  and  then  the  higher  forms, 
first  of  the  one,  and  then  of  the  other  ;  and 
lastly  the  highest  of  each  of  them  in  succession, 
would  but  have  introduced  prolixity  and  unnec- 
essary confusion  of  mind.  No  wise  man  now 
would  be  likely  to  adopt  such  a  method  of  teacli- 
ino'  his  child.  He  would  tell  him  that  God 
made  all  things,  —  the  earth  and  the  sky,  the 
sun,  moon,  and  stars  ;  He  made  the  grass,  too, 
and  the  trees  ;  the  fishes  and  the  birds  and  the 
animals  ;  and  last  of  all  He  made  man.  This  is 
precisely  what  the  Omniscient  taught  those  who 
were  in  their  spiritual  infancy.  In  this  teach- 
ing there  is  no  evidence  of  the  error  of  imper- 
fect knowledge,  but  only  of  an  adaptation  to  the 
exio:encies  under  which  the  revelation  must  be 
made.     It  leads  men  at  once  to  the  great  fea- 

and,  in  short,  by  first  drilling-  patiently  the  human  reason  and 
heart  into  those  pure  monotheistic  conceptions  which  distin- 
guish the  relig-ion  of  the  Bible."  —  Old  Faiths  in  New  Light, 
pp.  l<j(S,  137. 


20  INTRODUCTION. 

tures  of  tlie  truth ;  it  leads  them  to  the  exact 
detail,  as  far  as  they  were  capable  of  being  led 
at  the  time ;  its  apparent  error  is  simply  from 
its  generality  and  its  brevity.  To  have  been 
more  precisely  accurate,  merely  to  teach  a  scien- 
tific detail  which  man  in  due  time  could  and 
would  find  out  for  himself,  would  have  required 
a  prolixity  unsuited  to  the  occasion. 

It  may  be  said,  in  this  and  several  other  cases, 
that  the  result  is  the  same,  whether  we  suppose 
the  statements  to  be  those  of  imperfect  human 
knowledge,  or  of  Omniscience  adapting  itself  to 
human  ignorance ;  in  either  case,  the  imperfect 
statement  remains.  In  a  certain  sense  this  is 
true,  and  is  a  necessity  of  any  progressive  reve- 
lation, and,  in  fact,  of  any  revelation,  to  men  of 
limited  knowledge ;  but  the  view  to  be  taken  of 
the  Scriptures  depends  greatly  on  whether  we 
consider  this  imperfection  the  result  of  man's 
speculation  or  of  God's  condescension.  In  the 
one  case,  we  have  the  human  element  of  the  Bible 
without  limitation,  and  can  rely  upon  it  only  in 
so  far  as  man's  wisdom  is  trustworthy  ;  in  the 
other,  we  have  the  teaching  of  Omniscience  it- 
self, and  only  need  to  take  into  account  that  He 
taught  men  according  as  they  were  able  to  bear. 
The  cosmogony  of  Genesis,  to  say  the  least,  is 
consistent  with  the  latter  hypothesis. 

The  three  examples  now  given  are  enough  to 


INTRODUCTION.  21 

show  how  all  alleged  errors  of  this  kind  may  be 
treated,  i.  e.,  all  errors  which  are  sometimes  con- 
sidered as  the  result  of  imperfect  knowledge, 
and  especially  those  which  come  within  the  scope 
of  natural  science.  They  are  due  not  to  the  hu- 
man imperfection  of  the  writers,  but  to  that  of 
the  readers ;  they  are  simply  the  necessary  limi- 
tation of  revelation  in  making  itself  intelligible 
to  those  to  whom  it  was  given.  They  are  con- 
sistent, therefore,  with  the  view  that  all  the 
teaching  of  the  Scriptures  is  controlled  by  infi- 
nite knowledge,  and  that  the  human  writers 
have  been  so  limited  as  to  prevent  their  intro- 
ducing into  them  the  errors  of  their  own  private 
notions.  Not,  of  course,  that  the  Omniscient 
can  be  convicted  of  imperfect  knowledge,  but 
that  for  man's  sake  he  has  seen  fit  to  use  such 
language  and  such  incomplete  statements  as 
man  has  been  abl^  to  receive,  and  which  should 
ultimately  become  the  means,  through  the  spir- 
itual education  they  afforded  him,  of  enabling 
man  himself,  in  some  degree,  to  fill  out  what 
was  insufficient  in  them. 

This  leads  to  the  consideration  of  another 
class  of  errors  with  which  the  Bible  is  charged. 
From  its  earliest  to  its  latest  books  there  is  evi- 
dent a  gradually  growing  conception  of  the  spir- 
ituality and  infinity  of  the  Father  of  all.  The 
representation  of  God  as  walking  in  the  garden 


22  INTRODUCTION. 

in  the  cool  of  the  day,  and  inquiring  of  guilty 
man  where  he  might  be  found,  would  be  out  of 
place  in  the  New  Testament,  and  would  clash 
with  the  way  in  which  the  divine  Being  is  there 
spoken  of.  Hence  it  is  argued  that  the  Old 
Testament  conception  of  God  is  a  human  and  a 
false  one ;  that  it  represents  Him  as  an  exagger- 
ated man,  changing  His  plans  and  repenting  of 
what  He  has  done,  pleased  with  one  action  of  His 
creatures,  grieved  with  another,  and  frequently 
using  purely  human  methods  and  contrivances 
for  the  accomplishment  of  His  purposes.  It  may 
be  remarked,  in  passing,  that  the  same  objec- 
tion applies  —  in  a  less  degree,  indeed,  but  still 
in  its  essential  point  —  to  the  New  Testament 
also,  and  to  all  human  discourse  about  the  infi- 
nite ;  for  this  must  of  necessity  be  expressed 
chiefly  in  concrete  and  figurative  terms.  But 
this  remark  does  not  meet»the  difficulty ;  for, 
whatever  be  the  necessities  of  human  language, 
there  is  a  manifest  progress  in  the  course  of  the 
long  ages  during  which  the  composition  of  the 
various  books  of  the  Bible  was  going  on.  Dur- 
ing these  ages  man's  conception  of  God  was 
l^urified  and  exalted,  and,  as  this  change  is  re- 
flected in  the  books  of  the  various  ages,  it  is 
easy  to  attribute  the  change  in  the  books  them- 
selves to  the  improved  conceptions  of  the  writers. 
On  this  supposition,  whatever  is  imperfect  and 


INTRODUCTION.  23 

erroneous  belongs  to  the  writers,  and  gives  evi- 
dence that  the  human  element  has  not  been  so 
limited  as  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  error. 

An  entirely  different  view  may  also  be  taken 
of  these  errors,  referring  them  to  the  Omniscient 
Source  of  the  Scriptures  ;  and  if  this  view  be- 
comes on  examination  probable,  or  even  possi- 
ble, the  basis  of  any  sure  inferences  from  the 
opposite  view  will  be  taken  away.  If  it  can  be 
still  farther  shown  that  even  the  earlier  Scrip- 
tural conceptions  of  the  Deity  embrace  features 
which  were  beyond  the  reach  of  the  men  of  the 
time,  or  of  any  time,  except  as  they  have  been 
taught  by  revelation,  then  it  will  be  clear  that 
the  representations,  as  a  whole,  come  from  a 
divine  source,  and  cannot  be  considered  as  errors 
at  all,  except  in  the  same  sense  as  those  already 
considered.  An  examination  of  the  facts  will 
lead  to  the  latter  conclusion. 

Nothing  can  be  more  true  than  the  assertion 
of  modern  philosophy  that  the  Infinite  Being  is, 
and  must  always  have  been,  in  his  own  ultimate 
essence,  imknoivable  to  finite  man.  Were  it 
conceivable  that  He  should  reveal  Himself  as  He 
is,  the  revelation  would  have  no  value  or  signifi- 
cance for  us,  because  we  could  not  understand 
it.  Any  useful  revelation  must  be  in  terms 
adapted  to  the  human  understanding,  and  hence 
must   be   partial   and   imperfect,   and,   in   that 


24  INTBODUCTION. 

sense,  erroneous.  Nevertheless,  it  may  be  of  the 
utmost  value,  not  because  of  tlie  side  which  is 
imperfect,  but  because  of  that  partial  truth 
which  man  could  not  otherwise  attain.  And  this 
being  attained  leads  on  to  ever  higher  and 
higher,  though  still  imperfect,  truth,  and  mean- 
time enables  man  to  guide  his  life  in  far  closer 
correspondence  to  the  divine  will  than  would 
otherwise  be  practicable.  The  possibility  of  a 
revelation  is  here  assumed,  although  this  is  not 
the  place  to  inquire  how  it  is  possible.  The  per- 
sonal conviction  of  the  writer  is  clear  that  it  can 
only  be  made  through  a  Mediator,  —  that  the 
infinite  and  the  finite,  the  divine  and  the  human, 
are  incommensurable  terms,  which  can  only  be 
brought  together  in  one  who  partakes  of  the 
nature  of  both,  and  hence  that  the  incarnation  is 
the  fundamental  fact  in  the  possibility  of  revela- 
tion. But  however  this  may  be,  we  assume  that 
a  revelation  exists,  and  we  are  concerned  only  to 
know  what  are  the  limitations  upon  its  human 
side.  Kevelation  must  be  given  in  terms  adapted 
to  human  comprehension  in  order  to  be  intelligi- 
ble :  and  hence  it  follows  that  it  must  be  sfiven 
at  various  times,  in  terms  adaj^ted  to  the  vary- 
ing capacities  of  those  times.  In  the  spiritual 
infancy  of  the  race  it  must  be  vastly  more  an- 
thropomorphic than  is  necessary  after  thousands 
of  years  of  continued  spiritual  education.     And 


INTRODUCTION.  25 

after  tlie  higher  revelation  has  been  given,  it 
will  still  be  desirable  that  the  earlier,  and  in 
this  respect  lower,  shall  remain  for  the  benefit 
of  those  not  yet  prepared  for  the  higher;  and 
this  is  a  condition  through  which  all  pass  in  the 
course  of  their  lives,  and  in  which,  perhaps,  some 
remain  permanently  fixed. 

If,  therefore,  the  fact  be  accepted  that  God  is 
what  in  the  imperfection  of  our  language  we  are 
fain  to  describe  as  merciful  and  loving,  it  follows 
that  in  any  revelation  of  himself  he  will  not 
reveal  himself  perfectly,  —  that  is,  absolutely 
truly,  —  but  only  partially,  as  man  is  able  to 
bear  it;  and  this  must  be,  in  a  certain  sense, 
untruly  or  erroneously.  Revelation  must,  there- 
fore, be  marked  in  different  ages  by  different 
degrees  of  this  imperfection  or  so-called  errone- 
ousness  of  teaching.  Men  must  be  trained 
through  inferior  conceptions  —  such  conceptions 
as  it  was  possible  to  awaken  in  them  without 
violating  the  laws  of  their  nature  —  to  enable 
them  to  rise  to  higher  ones :  they  must  be  ap- 
pealed to  through  motives  and  feelings  they  can 
understand,  before  they  can  be  led  up  to  those 
which  at  first  they  could  not  understand.  It  was 
necessary  to  insist  long  and  earnestly  upon  mono- 
theism before  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  could 
be  safely  taught.  It  is,  therefore,  possible  that 
what  at  first  sight  seems  to  belong  to  the  faulty 


26  INTRODUCTION. 

conceptions  of  the  human  writers  of  the  Bible 
may  really  be  a  part  of  the  progressive  divine 
teaching.  As  far  as  yet  considered,  indeed,  it 
might  belong  to  either ;  and  since  the  growing 
capacity  of  man  for  higher  and  purer  revela- 
tion is  parallel  with  his  actually  higher  and 
purer  conception  of  God,  we  might  be  uncertain 
to  which  of  them  to  refer  this  progress.  It  is 
necessary,  then,  to  inquire  if  these  imj^erfect 
revelations  have  any  characteristics  which  indis- 
putably besjDeak  a  divine  origin.  There  need 
be  no  difficulty  in  finding  them. 

One  of  the  most  striking  features  in  the  Scrip- 
tural representation  of  the  Divine  Being  from 
first  to  last,  and  all  along  with  these  anthropo- 
morphic representations,  is,  that  no  man  shall 
see  God  and  live  ;  that  He  dwells  in  light  which 
no  man  can  approach  unto  ;  that  He  is  not  a 
man  that  He  should  repent,  but  that  with  Him  is 
neither  variableness  nor  shadow  of  turning  ;  that 
no  man  by  searching  can  find  Him  out ;  and 
many  like  expressions.  Such  teaching,  although 
it  becomes  clearer  as  man  became  better  edu- 
cated to  receive  it,  is  yet  scattered  through  books 
by  the  most  various  writers,  and  at  great  dis- 
tances of  time,  and  makes  it  plain  that  anthro- 
pomorphic representations  are  also  used  in  them 
only  as  of  necessity,  and  for  man's  sake.  That 
there  might   be  no   real  misunderstanding,  the 


INTRODUCTION.  27 

declarations   just    mentioned    are    interspersed 
with  these  representations,  showing  as  clearly  as 
the  language  of  any  modern  philosophy  that  the 
Scriptures  understood  God,  in  His  absolute  es- 
sence, to  be  unknowable  and  unapproachable  by 
his  creature.    Now,  this  was  not  a  doctrine  of  hu- 
man invention.     In  the  philosophies  of  antiquity 
it  appears  only  in    their  profoundest   treatises, 
never  in  popular  teaching ;  and  it  does  not  ap- 
pear at  all  until  long  ages  after  it  had  been  an- 
nounced in  the  Scriptures.     Moreover,  it  never 
appears  with   the    fullness   and    distinctness   of 
enunciation  which  it   has  in  the  Bible.     Here, 
then,  is  the  clear  mark  of  a  divine  source,  —  the 
sio-n-manual  of    more   than   human  knowledge; 
and  this  is  so   interwoven  with  the   other  rep- 
resentations that  they  cannot    be  disentangled. 
Thus  the  doubt  is  solved,  and  what  might  other- 
wise have  been  considered  as  the  result  of  human 
imperfection  is  shown  to  be  the  effect  of  divine 
condescension.     This  class  of  errors,  then,  like 
those  which  have  gone  ^before,  are  in  no  other 
sense  really  errors  than  as   they  are  imperfect 
representations  of  the  truth,  adapted  to  the  wants 
and  capacities  of  those  to  whom  they  were  given  ; 
and  at  the  same  time  they  are  so  connected  with 
other  statements  as  to  show  that  there  was  a  lim- 
itation put  on  the  expression  of  the  human  no- 
tions of  the  writer,  so  that  he  was  to  teach,  on 


28  INTRODUCTION. 

the  whole,  what  was  beyond  the  reach  of  merely 
human  thought. 

There  is  another  kind  of  alleged  error,  of  a 
more  technical  kind,  which  must  be  considered 
here,  that  it  may  not  be  in  the  way  farther  on. 
There  are  frequently  in  the  different  books  dupli- 
cate accounts  of  the  same  transaction,  and  these 
do  not  always  agree ;  and  there  is  sometimes  in 
a  later  book  a  quotation  or  a  reference  which 
does  not,  at  least  upon  its  face,  answer  exactly 
to  the  original.  Such  divergences  are  often 
disposed  of  by  the  remark  that  they  arise  simply 
from  the  individualities  of  the  writers,  their 
differences  of  recollection,  their  habits  of  mind, 
their  misunderstandings  of  what  they  read,  and 
their  mental  prepossessions  ;  just  as  similar  di- 
vergences are  seen  in  the  testimony  of  conscien- 
tious witnesses  in  our  courts  of  justice,  or  in 
varying  reports  of  conversation  or  of  public  ad- 
dresses. It  is  certainly  unnecessary  to  eliminate 
this  human  mould  of  the  Scriptures  altogether. 
It  constitutes,  e.  g.,  one  of  the  peculiar  charms 
of  the  fourfold  portraiture  of  our  Lord  in  the 
Gospels.  It  is  important,  nevertheless,  to  know 
its  limits ;  it  is  important  to  know  if  actual 
errors,  even  in  matters  of  secondary  importance, 
do  occur,  so  that  we  cannot  be  better  assured  of 
the  truth  of  the  casual  statements  of  the  Bible 
than  of  those  of  other  historians ;  or  whether. 


INTRODUCTION.  29 

whatever  be  the  individual  coloring  of  the  narra- 
tive, we  can  j^et  rely  upon  every  positive  state- 
ment of  the  sacred  books  as  absolutely  true.  In 
other  words,  the  question  here  comes  uj),  as  in 
other  cases,  whether  these  alleged  errors  are  due 
to  the  imperfect  knowledge  and  faulty  ideas  of 
the  human  writers,  or  whether  inspiration  has  so 
watched  over  and  guarded  them  that  they  have 
been  restrained  from  any  even  trivial  misstate- 
ments. It  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  examine 
here  all  debatable  passages.  Only  a  few  of  the 
more  vexed  and  difficult  cases  can  be  selected  as 
examples  of  the  whole. 

The  general  principle  in  the  comparison  of 
seemingly  inconsistent  accounts  in  ancient  docu- 
ments is  the  same  as  is  now  observed  in  resrard 
to  testimony  in  any  modern  court  of  justice,  — 
before  pronouncing  either  of  them  false,  it  is  to 
be  seen  whether  there  is  not  some  rational  and 
likely  hypothesis  in  regard  to  the  circumstances 
which  will  bring  both  accounts  into  haruiony. 
Or,  if  this  fails,  it  is  to  be  asked  whether  each 
witness  must  not  have  been  aware  of  the  facts 
stated  by  the  other,  and  yet,  without  other  mo- 
tive than  a  desire  to  tell  the  truth,  has  given  a 
different  version  of  them.  In  the  latter  case 
there  is  reason  to  suppose  that  both  are  true, 
although  at  our  distance  from  the  events  we 
cannot  suggest  any  hypothesis  which  will  bring 


30  INTRODUCTION. 

them  into  consistency.  The  discrepancies  be- 
tween the  evangelists  have  so  long  attracted 
attention  that  little  need  be  said  of  them.  Es- 
pecially in  regard  to  the  varying  accounts  of 
the  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  long  the  stalking 
horse  of  infidelity,  it  is  worth  while  to  remember 
that  West,  a  few  generations  ago,  undertook  to 
demonstrate  from  his  deistical  standpoint  the 
falsity  of  the  Gospels,  by  showing  their  absolute 
inconsistency  in  this  narrative ;  he  examined 
them  with  a  clear  head  and  an  honest  heart,  and 
the  result  was  his  famous  treatise  on  the  resur- 
rection, and  his  own  conversion  into  a  Christian 
believer. 

We  select,  as  one  of  the  most  apparently  con- 
tradictory narratives,  the  healing  of  the  blind 
man,  or  men,  near  Jericho.  It  has  long  been 
recognized  that  there  is  no  real  difficulty  here, 
as  in  several  other  cases  in  the  mention  of  two 
blind  men  by  one  of  the  evangelists  (Matt.  xx. 
30),  while  the  others  (Mark  x.  46  ;  Luke  xviii. 
35)  speak  only  of  the  one,  Bartimseus,  who  es- 
pecially attracted  attention.  But  both  Matthew 
and  Mark  expressly  say  that  the  event  occurred 
when  they  had  departed  from  Jericho,  while 
Luke  is  equally  definite  in  saying  that  it  was 
when  Jesus  was  drawing  near  to  the  city  {Iv  tw 
eyyt^ctv  amhv  iU  'Icpcix''')-  ^^^  attempts  to  explain 
the  latter  phrase  as  meaning  only  while  they 


INTRODUCTION.  31 

we7'e  near  must  be  given  up  as  strained  and  un- 
supported by  usage.  But  it  is  altogether  likely 
that  our  Lord  on  this  journey  spent  several  days 
at  Jericho,  and  that,  as  was  His  custom  at  Jerusa- 
lem, and  is  still  the  common  custom  in  visiting 
Eastern  cities,  He  slept  in  the  country,  and  came 
daily  into  the  city.  This  supposition,  which  is 
not  only  -possible,  but  in  itself  probable,  removes 
the  whole  difficulty.  Matthew  and  Mark  speak 
of  the  miracle  as  wrought  when  He  had  gone 
out  from  the  city ;  Luke,  more  particularly,  as 
exactly  when  He  was  entering  it  again  on  His 
morning  return.  The  various  records  of  Peter's 
denials  of  his  Master,  and  other  seeming  dis- 
crepancies, are  all  brought  into  accord  by  even 
more  simple  suppositions  ;  but  this  one  example 
must  here  suffice.  An  intelligent  exegesis,  seek- 
ing harmony,  will  always  find  it  without  strain. 

In  the  citation  of  the  Old  Testament  it  is  by 
no  means  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  New 
Testament  writers  always  intended  to  quote  it 
according  to  its  original  meaning.  Their  minds 
were  full  of  its  language,  and  it  was  natural  for 
them  to  express  what  they  had  to  say,  just  as 
men  do  now,  in  terms  with  which  they  had  been 
familiar  from  childhood,  without  a  thought  that 
the  passage  had  originally  the  application  given 
to  it  in  their  quotation.  They  would  also  some- 
times see  an  application  of  what  had  been  said 


32  INTBODUCTION. 

of  events  long  gone  by  to  occurrences  of  their 
own  time  too  a  2^ro2^os  to  pass  unnoticed,  just  as 
is  clone  in  our  own  clay ;  and  in  such  cases  they 
might  very  well  introduce  their  application  by 
saying,  "  It  has  come  to  pass  according  as  it  is 
written,"  or  "  Thus  was  the  Scripture  fulfilled," 
without  imagining  that  the  old  Scripture  itself 
looked  to  any  such  application.  Passages  of 
this  kind,  however,  are  fewer  than  is  sometimes 
supposed,  and  the  common  sense  of  mankind  is 
sufficient  to  deal  with  them. 

There  are  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
also  cited  argumentatively,  and  it  is  alleged  that 
in  some  of  these  the  argument  is  faulty  through 
a  misinterpretation  of  the  quotation.  These 
will  be  considered  presently,  in  connection  with 
alleged  errors  of  reasoning.  Meantime  there 
are  several  quotations  with  which  fault  is  found 
on  other  grounds. 

Perhaps  the  most  classic  instances  are  in  the 
speech  of  Stephen  (Acts  vii.).  In  discussing 
these  it  is  to  be  remembered  who  he  was,  —  "a 
man  full  of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost "  and 
"  of  power,"  and  of  a  wisdom  that  his  adversa- 
ries could  not  resist  (Acts  vi.  5-10).  He  was 
familiar  with  the  history  of  his  people,  and  spoke 
to  an  audience  fully  competent  and  well  disposed 
to  trip  him  up  in  any  slip.  His  object  was  not 
to  instruct  them  in    their  history,  but  to  prove 


INTRODUCTION.  33 

from  its  familiar  facts  that  they  sinned  in  reject- 
ing Jesus  as  their  Messiah.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, it  is  in  the  highest  degree  unlikely 
that  he  would  have  made  any  errors.  If  any 
statements  appear  to  us  wrong,  after  the  lapse 
of  eighteen  hundred  years,  the  presumption  is 
strong  that  Stephen  knew  more  about  the  facts 
than  we  do.  Yet  this  presumption  is  only  a 
priori ;  the  facts  must  be  taken  as  they  are. 
Almost  his  first  statement  is,  that  God  called 
Abraham  "  when  he  was  in  Mesopotamia,  before 
he  dwelt  in  Charran "  ;  and,  accordingly,  the 
English  Bible  reads,  in  Gen.  xii.  1 ;  "  Now  the 
Lord  had  said  unto  Abram,  Get  thee  out  of  thy 
country,"  etc.  ;  but  the  critics  say  that  this  is  an 
incorrect  translation,  made  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  the  passage  into  accord  with  Stephen. 
We  doubt  this.  The  Hebrew  certainly  does  not 
express  the  pluperfect,  because  it  has  no  form 
for  that  tense,  and  must  depend  upon  the  con- 
text for  its  indication.  We  think  such  indica- 
tion is  found  here,  especially  in  the  mention  of 
the  country  and  kindred  and  father's  house 
which  Abram  was  to  leave,  and  which  were  cer- 
tainly not  left  in  Haran  ;  and  hence  we  consider 
the  English  Bible  right  in  its  translation.^     But 

^  The  following  instances  in  which  the  imperfect  with  1 
bears  a  pluperfect  sense  are  at  least  worthy  of  consideration  : 
Gen.  ii.  19 ;  xxvi.  18  ;  xxxi.  34 ;  xli.  21  ;  Ex.  xxxiii.  5  ;  Judg.  i. 
8 ;  ii.  6 ;  1  Sam.  xiv.  24 :  xxviii.  3 ;  2  Sam.  xiv.  33 ;  Isa. 
xxxviii.  21,  22;  xxxix.  1. 


84  INTBODUCTION. 

waiving  this,  there  is  a  distinct  statement  in  Gen. 
XV.  7  :  "I  am  the  Lord  that  brought  thee  out  of 
Ur  of  the  Chaldees,"  so  that  Stephen  had  good 
authority  for  what  he  said.  A  more  serious  diffi- 
culty is  found  a  little  further  on,  where  he  states 
(vcr.  16)  that  the  twelve  patriarchs  were  buried 
"  in  the  sepulchre  that  Abraham  bought  for  a 
sum  of  money  of  the  sons  of  Emmor  the  father 
of  Sychem."  Now,  we  know  that  Abraham 
bought  a  cave  for  a  sepulchre  at  Mamre,  but  Jo- 
seph and  his  brethren  were  not  buried  there; 
we  know,  also,  that  Jacob  bought  a  piece  of  land 
of  the  sons  of  Hamor  near  Shechem,  and  Joseph 
was  buried  there.  Is  it  possible  that  Stephen, 
in  the  haste  of  his  utterance,  mixed  the  two 
facts,  and  attributed  to  Abraham  the  purchase 
which  belonged  to  Jacob  ?  We  think  not ;  be- 
cause, in  all  probability,  Abraham  was  the  origi- 
nal purchaser  of  the  same  land  afterwards  pur- 
chased by  Jacob,  and  this  fact  was  known  to 
Stephen.  The  evidence  is  as  follows :  The  land 
about  Shechem  was  already  occupied  (Gen.  xii. 
6,  7)  when  Abraham  built  an  altar  there.  There 
were  biit  three  ways  in  which  he  could  have  done 
this :  he  must  either  have  built  it  on  the  Shechem- 
ites'  land,  by  their  sufferance  —  an  unlikely  pro- 
cedure for  Abraham,  and  one  giving  no  security 
for  the  sacredness  of  the  altar ;  or  he  must  have 
taken  it  by  violence,  which  is  improbable  in  the 


INTRODUCTION.  35 

extreme  ;  or,  finally,  he  must  have  purchased  it, 
which  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  he  did.  A  cen- 
tury or  more  afterwards  Jacob  came  to  the  same 
place,  and  also  wished  to  build  an  altar,  presum- 
ably on  the  site  of  his  grandfather's.  But  the 
land  being  occupied,  this  field  would  not  have 
been  left  so  long  idle,  and  Jacob  doubtless  found 
it  in  some  one's  possession.  If  he  would  reclaim 
it,  it  must  be  either  by  his  sword,  or  by  a  fresh 
purchase.  No  one  familiar  with  Jacob's  charac- 
ter can  doubt  his  choice,  and  his  purchase  is  re- 
corded. The  facts,  however,  make  it  probable 
that  Abraham  had  purchased  it  before,  and 
hence  that  Stephen  was  right.^  Some  other 
minor  points  in  this  speech,  which  cannot  be 
considered  here,  are  satisfactorily  solved,  if  care- 
fully considered.  The  two  noticed,  which  are 
the  most  difficult,  may  serve  for  examples  of  all. 
There  are  also  inaccuracies  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment quotations  from  the  Old.  When  these  do 
not  affect  the  substance  of  the  quotation  it  is 

^  The  more  common  solution  of  this  difficulty  —  that  Abra- 
ham in  Acts  vii.  16,  is  an  erroneous  reading  for  Jacob  —  is  not 
here  taken  into  view,  partly  because  there  is  no  external  evi- 
dence for  it,  and  conjectural  emendations  are  hazardous ;  and 
partly  because  the  ellipsis  rod  Suxe/t  as  it  stands  in  the  text, 
rec.  would  not  admit  of  being-  supplied  (as  it  is  in  the  A.  V.)  by 
TTCT^p ;  while  the  better  reading  is  iv  Sux^V*  The  person  of 
whom  Jacob  purchased  appears  to  have  been  a  different  per- 
son from  the  one  of  whom  Abraham  purchased,  though  having 
the  same  patronymic. 


36  INTRODUCTION. 

enougli  to  say  that,  as  the  case  may  be,  the  quo- 
tation is  from  the  Septuagint,  the  version  in 
common  use,  without  stopping  to  criticise  it,  or 
is  freely  translated  from  the  original,  or  even 
sometimes  is  loosely  quoted  from  memory.  But 
there  are  cases  in  which  the  Septuagint  is  quoted 
when  it  differs  in  an  important  point  from  the 
original.  The  most  striking  instance  is  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (x.  5)  :  "  Sacrifice  and 
burnt-offering  thou  wouldest  not,  but  a  body 
hast  thou  prepared  me,"  It  is  notorious  that 
the  word  "  body  "  is  not  in  the  original,  and  is 
quoted  in  the  Septuagint.  If  this  were  an  un- 
important word,  it  would  attract  no  attention, 
because  it  would  not  have  been  worth  the  writer's 
while  to  go  out  of  the  way  to  correct  it ;  but  as 
the  discourse  is  of  Christ's  atonement,  at  first 
sight  this  word  seems  very  important.  But  a 
closer  examination  shows  that  the  whole  stress 
of  the  passage  and  the  whole  argument  from  the 
quotation  rests  upon  Christ's  having  come  to  do 
the  Father's  will.  The  contrast  is  drawn  be- 
tween the  imperfect  way  of  removing  sins  by  the 
sacrifices  of  old,  and  the  perfect  way  through 
Christ's  obedience.  The  word  "  body  "  was  so 
entirely  immaterial  to  the  argument  that  when, 
in  summing  up,  the  quotation  is  repeated  to 
clinch  the  conclusion,  it  is  without  the  clause 
containing  this  word. 


INTRODUCTION.  37 

This  instance  closely  connects  itself  with  al- 
leged errors  of  reasoning.  Our  Lord  himself 
and  His  apostles  also  reason  largely  from  the 
Old  Testament.  This  is  the  only  authority 
which  Christ  recognizes  at  all ;  and  while  He 
subordinates  even  this  to  His  own  teaching,  He 
yet  bases  arguments  upon  its  language,  and  posi- 
tively declares,  "  One  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in 
no  wise  pass  from  the  law  till  all  be  fulfilled." 
The  apostles  everywhere  assume  that  the  Old 
Testament  was  accepted  as  a  matter  of  course 
with  Christianity  ;  and  even  with  heathen  con- 
verts (as,  e.  ^.,  the  Galatians)  they  reason  from 
Old  Testament  types  and  shadows  to  Christian 
verities.  It  is  asserted  that  some  of  this  reason- 
ing is  illogical  and  inconsequential,  is  fashioned 
after  the  rabbinical  methods  of  argument,  and 
is  a  clear  case  of  the  human  element,  unre- 
strained and  uncontrolled,  coming  to  the  surface 
in  the  word  of  God. 

A  full  answer  to  this  allegation  could  only  be 
made  by  a  careful  examination  of  every  passage 
by  which  it  is  thought  to  be  sustained.  This  is 
impossible  within  our  limits  ;  but,  as  in  other 
cases,  a  few  of  the  more  difficult  instances  may 
be  taken  as  examples  of  the  rest.  The  argu- 
ments in  question  are  chiefly  in  the  Epistles  of 
Paul,  and  in  that  to  the  Hebrews.  It  is  admitted 
that  the  writer  was  an  intelligent  man,  gifted 


88  INTRODUCTION. 

with  no  small  degree  of  logical  acumen.  His 
main  arguments,  too,  are  powerful,  and  generally 
convincing.  The  question  is  about  some  minor 
details,  which  were  satisfactory  enough  to  his 
contemporaries,  but  which  are  now  criticised  as 
resting  upon  a  faulty  exegesis  of  the  passages 
quoted,  while  the  reasoning  based  upon  them  is 
said  to  savor  of  rabbinical  subtlety,  rather  than 
of  manly  and  fair  argument.  These  are  some- 
times defended  on  the  ground  of  the  lawfulness 
of  the  argiwientum  ad  hominem ;  but  this  is 
hardly  satisfactory.  Either  the  reasoning  must 
be  shown  to  be  fair,  and  based  upon  sound  pre- 
mises, or  else  it  must  be  recognized  as  the  result 
of  the  imperfection  of  the  human  writers,  which 
inspiration  has  not  controlled  sufficiently  to  pre- 
vent the  introduction  of  error  into  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  latter  alternative  may  seem,  at  first 
sight,  the  easier ;  but  we  are  not  entitled  to 
adopt  it  until  some  case  can  be  pointed  out  in 
which  it  is  clearly  required.  The  a  priori  pre- 
sumption must  always  be  against  it  in  books 
which  confessedly  contain  so  much  of  the  di- 
vine teaching.  The  most  frequently  cited  in- 
stances are  one  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
and  two  in  that  to  the  Galatians.  If  all  these 
are  found  to  be  sound  arguments,  without  the 
aid  of  rabbinical  casuistry,  other  alleged  in- 
stances will  still  more  readily  yield  before  a  fair 
and  careful  examination. 


INTR  OD  UCTION.  S9 

The  case  referred  to  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  that  in  which  the  superiority  of  the 
Melchisedecan  to  the  Aaronic  priesthood  is 
shown  by  Abraham's  payment  of  tithes  to  Mel- 
chisedec  (Heb.  vii.  4-10).  The  argument  here 
is  this :  All  spiritual  authority  is  from  God,  and 
there  can  be  no  disturbance  of  the  relations  He 
has  established.  He  gave  certain  blessings  and 
privileges  to  Melchisedec,  and  also  certain  ones 
to  Abraham  and  his  descendants.  The  relation 
which  existed  between  these  two  must  continue 
in  after  ages  to  be  the  relation  between  those 
who  draw  their  authority  from  them  respectively. 
Now,  Abraham  recognized  the  spiritual  superior- 
ity of  Melchisedec ;  therefore  the  spiritual  au- 
thority of  the  priesthood  derived  from  Melchise- 
dec must  be  superior  to  that  derived  from 
Abraham.  Incidentally,  the  author  remarks, 
"  And  (as  I  may  so  say)  Levi  also,  who  receiv- 
eth  tithes,  paid  tithes  in  Abraham  ;  for  he  was 
yet  in  the  loins  of  his  father  when  Melchisedec 
met  him  ;  "  but  this  is  an  illustration,  not  an 
argument,  and  even  as  illustration  is  qualified 
by  the  "  as  I  may  so  say."  The  assumption  of 
a  fallacy  here  rests  upon  the  supposition  that 
the  argument  culminates  in  this  clause  ;  whereas 
it  is  complete  without  it,  except  as  this  points 
the  fact  that  Levi  was  descended  from  Abraham. 
The  only  flaw  in  the  argument  as  it  stands  is 


40  INTBODUCTION. 

met  by  the  author  a  little  further  on.  It  might 
be  that  the  Levitical  priesthood,  being  expressly 
established  by  God,  had  received  a  higher  au- 
thority than  belonged  to  the  spiritual  position  of 
Abraham,  and  thus  have  been  raised  even  above 
that  of  Melchisedec.  The  apostle  shows  elabo- 
rately that  this  was  not  the  case,  and  his  argu- 
ment remains  intact. 

The  two  cases  in  Galatians  may  be  taken  in 
the  order  in  which  they  occur.  In  the  first  (iii. 
15,  16)  Paul  argues  that  the  promise  made  to 
Abraham  and  his  seed,  rather  than  to  his  seeds, 
must  apply  to  Christ.  The  difficulty  arises  sim- 
ply from  not  observing  wherein  the  apostle's 
argument  really  lies.  Unquestionably  the  word 
"  seed,"  whether  in  Hebrew,  Greek,  or  English, 
is  a  collective  term,  and  had  the  promise  to 
Abraham  been  meant  to  be  distributed  to  all  his 
numerous  posterity  it  would  still  have  been 
couched  in  the  same  terms.  No  sound  argu- 
ment, therefore,  can  be  drawn  from  the  use  of 
the  singular  rather  than  the  plural ;  nor  is  this 
the  apostle's  design.  He  has,  indeed,  been  sup- 
posed to  argue  from  this,  and  therefore  to  argue 
fallaciously  ;  but  he  does  not  do  so.  He  sup- 
poses some  things  to  be  known  to  his  readers, 
and  among  them  the  nature  of  the  promise  to 
Abraham.  The  primeval  promise  to  fallen  man 
was  that  the  seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise 


INTRODUCTION.  41 

the  serpent's  head,  that,  in  the  long  struggle 
with  the  power  of  evil,  one  born  of  woman  should 
at  last  win  the  victory.  Upon  this  promise  was 
based  the  hope  of  every  God-fearing  man  through 
the  long  ages  of  corruption  that  followed ;  and 
from  time  to  time,  as  at  the  birth  of  Cain  and  of 
Noah,  this  hope  found  definite  expression.  Its 
realization  had  been  still  deferred ;  and  when 
Abraham  was  told  that  in  his  seed  all  the  fam- 
ilies of  the  earth  should  be  blessed,  he  must 
have  understood  it  meant  that  the  promised 
Eedeemer  should  be  born  of  his  line.  Through- 
out, this  expectation  was  that  of  a  personal 
Redeemer.  Trench  well  says,  "  No  thoughtful 
student  of  the  past  records  of  mankind  can 
refuse  to  acknowledge  that  through  all  its  his- 
tory there  has  been  the  hope  of  a  redemption 
from  the  evil  which  oppresses  it ;  nor  of  this 
only,  but  that  this  hope  has  continually  linked 
itself  on  to  some  single  man.  The  help  that  is 
coming  to  the  world,  it  has  ever  seen  incorpor- 
ated in  a  person."  ^  It  is  to  this  promise  that 
Paul  refers,  and  it  is  from  the  nature  of  this 
promise  that  he  argues.  The  promise,  he  says, 
was  not  to  the  posterity  of  Abraham  generally, 
but  to  this  one,  this  Redeemer,  who  is  Christ. 

^  Trench,  Hulsean  Lectures,  1846,  Lecture  ii.,  p.  28.  See 
this  passage  treated  more  at  length  in  a  "  Note  on  Gal.  iii. 
IC,"  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January,  1879,  p.  23. 


42  INTRODUCTION. 

To  express  compactly  and  tersely  his  meaning, 
he  uses  the  words,  "  He  saith  not,  And  to  seeds, 
as  of  many;  but  as  of  one,  and  to  thy  seed, 
which  is  Christ."  His  argument  is  not  drawn 
from  the  word,  but  from  the  nature  of  the  prom- 
ise ;  and  that  nature  of  the  promise  he  expresses, 
as  the  most  compact  and  convenient  way,  by  the 
singular  and  plural  of  the  word  "  seed." 

The  other  case  is  that  of  the  beautiful  alle- 
gory from  the  history  of  Hagar  and  Sarah  and 
their  descendants,  used  by  Paul  to  set  forth  the 
relations  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  under  the  Gospel 
(Gal.  iv.  21-31).  It  is  alleged  that  the  apostle, 
under  the  influence  of  his  rabbinical  education, 
has  here  been  guilty  of  founding  an  important 
argument  upon  what  should  have  been  a  mere 
illustration.  Paul  was  undoubtedly  a  man  who 
made  all  his  human  acquisitions  tell  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  his  Master's  cause,  and  frequently 
brings  the  familiar  story  of  the  Old  Testament 
to  the  enforcement  and  illustration  of  gospel 
truth  (as  in  1  Cor.  ix.  9,  10  ;  x.  1-11,  etc.) ; 
but  the  precise  question  here  is,  —  and  this  is 
important  in  its  bearing  on  the  general  subject, 
—  whether  he  does  this  after  the  rabbinical 
fashion  of  subtle  and  inconsequential  argument, 
or  whether  the  tendency  to  this,  which  might 
have  been  expected  from  his  education,  is  so 
overruled  and  controlled  by  the  Spirit  of  inspi- 


INTRODUCTION.  43 

ration  as  to  allow  of  his  using  only  arguments 
which  are  really  sound  and  forcible.     None  can 
doubt  the  appropriateness  of  the  references  here, 
and  in  other  places,  as  illustrations.     It  is  plain, 
too,  that  they  have  force  as  arguments  to  this 
extent  —  that  when  it  has  been  already  shown 
that  parties  under  the  gospel  occupy  the  same 
relations  as  other   parties  did   under  the  law, 
then  what  is  predicated  of  those  relations  in  the 
one  case  will  hold  good  in  the  other  also.     This 
is  precisely  what  is  done  in  the  passage  before 
us.     There  was  in  the  old  time  a  child  of  nature 
and  a  child  of  promise,  and  under  the  gospel 
there  is  the  same.     The  child  of  nature  of  old 
was  the  child  of  the  bondmaid,  and  followed  his 
mother's  condition  ;  and  the  same  is  true  now  ; 
the  Jew  is  the  child  of  Abraham  by  nature,  and 
is  under  the  bondage  of  the  law  to  which  he  was 
born.     The  child  of  promise  was  by  the  free- 
woman,  and  answers  to  those  who  come  into  the 
gospel  covenant  by  promise,  and  not  by  natural 
descent,  and  are  therefore  free   from  the  law. 
Paul,    recognizing   the    historical   truth   of   the 
events  to  which  he  refers,  says  that  they  truly 
represent  —  as  they  certainly  do  —  the  relation 
between  mere  natural  inheritance  and  inherit- 
ance by  promise,  and  shows  that  this  is  the  very 
relation  between  Jews  and  Christians  under  the 
gospel.     He   then   draws   from   this  relation  a 


44  INTBOBUVTION. 

forcible  and  legitimate  argument.  There  seems 
to  be  here  no  ground  for  a  charge  of  error. 
There  is  also  a  minor  point  objected  to  in  the 
incidental  statement  that  a  local  name  of  Mount 
Sinai  was  Hagar,  of  which  sufficient  external 
evidence  is  wanting ;  but  Paul  had  himself  been 
on  the  ground,  and  his  assertion  is  quite  as 
trustworthy  as  that  of  any  other  traveler,  and, 
moreover,  does  not  at  all  affect  his  argument. 

The  part  of  this  whole  subject  most  perplex- 
inof  to  some  minds  is  in  what  is  considered  the 
faulty  morality,  particularly  of  the  older  parts 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Polygamy,  slavery,  re- 
venge, the  punishment  of  the  innocent  for  the 
sin  of  the  guilty,  the  extermination  of  whole 
nations  —  and  that  too  in  bloody  wars  —  by  the 
hands  of  the  chosen  people,  the  success  of 
Jacob's  deceit,  the  praise  of  Jael's  perfidy, 
—  these  are  among  the  things  which  strike 
strangely  on  the  Christian's  ear,  and  seem  in- 
consistent with  the  character  of  an  All-holy 
God.  Do  these,  indeed,  come  from  the  divine 
source  of  the  Scriptures,  or  are  they  the  teach- 
ings of  men  enlightened  only  to  the  standard 
of  the  times  in  which  they  lived?  Many  things 
are  narrated  in  the  Bible  simply  as  historical 
facts,  for  the  morality  of  which  it  is  in  no  way 
responsible.  Immoral  acts,  also,  are  sometimes 
recorded  of  the  saints,  such  as  Abraham's  deceit 


INTRODUCTION,  45 

or  Peter's  denial  of  his  Master,  and  should  be 
eliminated  from  the  discussion,  because  the  Scrip- 
tures in  no  way  commend  them,  even  where  they 
do  not  openly  denounce  them.  Other  evils,  like 
polygamy,  though  always  opposed  to  God's  will, 
as  our  Lord  shows  from  the  narrative  of  crea- 
tion itself,  "were  suffered  for  the  hardness  of 
men's  hearts"  among  a  people  yet  unable  to 
bear  a  higher  morality ;  yet  the  evil  was  miti- 
gated and  restrained  as  far  as  was  practicable 
at  the  time.  So  also  was  slavery.  The  law  was 
unable  to  forbid  it ;  even  Christianity  did  not 
directly  do  this ;  but  the  old  dispensation  in 
every  possible  way  modified  and  reduced  its 
evils.  After  these  things  have  been  said,  how- 
ever, there  remains  much  that  seems  dark  and 
inexplicable.  The  lex  talionls  of  the  Penta- 
teuch was  not  merely  permissive  but  obligatory. 
"  Thine  eye  shall  not  pity ;  but  life  shall  go  for 
life,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand, 
foot  for  foot  "  (Deut.  xix.  21).  How  shall  this 
be  reconciled  with  the  gospel  law  of  returning 
love  for  hatred,  and  good  deeds  for  evil  ?  Be- 
cause the  condition  of  the  people  required  sucli 
commands,  in  order  that  they  might  thereby  be 
made  fit  for  a  higher  standard.  Principles  of 
justice  must  be  implanted  in  the  mind  as  a  nec- 
essary basis  for  those  of  love.  The  monsters  of 
the  Carboniferous  era  must  precede  the  develop- 


46  INTE  OD  UCTION. 

ment  of  life  in  the  Tertiary,  and  that  in  turn 
must  prepare  the  way  for  the  age  of  Man ;  yet 
to  Him  who  ordered  the  earth  from  the  begin- 
ning  those  Carboniferous  monsters  were  good  in 
their  day,  and  we  now  see  no  unfitness  in  their 
formation  under  the  guiding  hand  of  Him  who 
was  leading  our  earth  on  to  a  higher  state. 
So  in  the  spiritual  development  of  our  race,  as 
far  as  we  can  judge,  it  was  necessary  that  God 
should  govern  man  according  to  his  capacities, 
and  give  him  laws  suited  to  his  condition. 
Only  thus  could  he  be  advanced  to -a  higher 
standard  ;  only  by  impressing  on  a  lawless  peo- 
ple, given  to  unbridled  license  of  revenge,  a 
sense  of  exact  justice  and  of  the  rights  of  others 
could  they  be  prepared  for  a  higher  teaching.^ 
At  the  same  time,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
higher  principles  were  everywhere  embodied  in 
the  law  for  such  as  were  able  to  receive  them. 
"  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself " 
(Lev.  xix.  18)  was  a  precept  of  Leviticus,  as 
well  as  of  the  gospel.  These  considerations, 
fairly  applied  to  the  circumstances,  will  account 
for  what  otherwise  may  seem  strange  and  anom- 
alous in  the  law. 

But  why  should  the  people  who  were  thus  to 
be  trained  to  better  things  have  been  made  the 
executors  of  God's  wrath,  thereby  accustoming 

^  See,  on  this  subject,  Mozley,  Ruling  Ideas  in  the  Early  Ages. 


INTBODUCTION.  47 

them  to  deeds  of  savage  cruelty,  and  teaching 
them  to  imbrue  their  hands  with  the  blood  of 
defenseless  women  and  un weaned  children,  as 
well  as  with  that  of  the  warrior  ?  Why,  too, 
in  the  judgments  upon  individual  offenders,  as 
Dathan  and  Abiram,  or  Achan,  should  sentence 
have  been  executed  also  upon  their  innocent 
wives  and  little  ones  ?  The  answer  to  both  these 
and  other  like  questions  is  essentially  the  same. 
Men  always  have  stood,  and  they  still  stand,  not 
merely  in  an  individual,  but  also  in  a  federal, 
relation  to  God.  This  is  plain  everywhere  under 
what  is  called  God's  natural  government  of  the 
world.  People  suffer  or  prosper  according  to 
the  acts  of  their  rulers ;  families  are  affected  by 
the  conduct  of  their  head ;  children  inherit  not 
merely  the  fortunes,  but  the  idiosyncrasies  of 
their  parents.  Why  the  world  should  have  been 
so  constituted  we  cannot  here  inquire  ;  but  the 
fact  is  plain  ;  and  if  revelation  came  from  the 
same  Author  as  nature  we  must  expect  to  find 
in  it  the  same  general  features.  The  institution 
of  the  Christian  church  is  one  great  example  of 
it ;  and  whatever  blessing,  whatever  grace  comes 
to  the  individual  by  its  instrumentality  is  in  con- 
sequence of  the  federal  relation  in  which  the  be- 
liever, over  and  above  his  individual  relation, 
stands  to  his  Master.  So  strong  was  this  rela- 
tion of  old  that  the  prophet  could  say  (Num. 


48  INTRODUCTION . 

xxiii.  21)  :  God  "  hath  not  beheld  iniquity  in 
Jacob,  neither  hath  He  seen  perverseness  in 
Israel,"  at  the  very  time  when  He  was  punish- 
ing tens  of  thousands  among  them  for  their 
gross  and  outrageous  sins.  This  federal  rela- 
tion was  stronger  and  relatively  more  important 
in  ancient  than  in  modern  times.  The  progress 
of  revelation  has  always  tended  to  bring  out  the 
individual  more  clearly  as  he  stands  by  himself 
before  God,  and  although  the  federal  relation 
still  exists,  it  is  of  much  less  relative  imj)or- 
tance  than  formerly.  Anciently,  nations  existed 
chiefly  as  nations,  and  families  as  families,  and 
men  understood  little  of  any  other  relation. 
They  looked  upon  a  nation  as  an  organic  whole, 
and  upon  a  family  as  an  appurtenance  and  pos- 
session of  its  head.  When,  then,  a  nation,  as 
the  Amalekites  or  Canaanites,  had  arrayed  itself 
as  a  whole  against  the  church  of  God,  how  was 
it  to  be  dealt  with  ?  The  divine  judgment,  to 
have  any  value,  must  be  made  intelligible  alike 
to  friends  and  foes.  Men  could  distinguish  but 
little  between  the  individual  and  the  nation  of 
which  he  was  a  part.  Sometimes  there  might 
be  such  a  striking  instance  of  faith  as  that  of 
liahab,  when  it  became  possible  to  spare  the 
individual^  in  the  destruction  of  the  doomed 
city  ;  but  generally,  if  the  divine  judgment  was 

^  But  even  so,  her  whole  family  must  be  spared  with  her. 


INTRODUCTION.  49 

to  be  effective,  to  make  an  impression,  to  es- 
tablish God's  government  of  the  world,  it  must 
be  sweeping  and  comprehensive.  The  Israel- 
ites could  not  have  understood  that  God  was 
very  seriously  displeased  with  Achan,  except  his 
family  also  were  involved  in  the  same  sentence. 
They  could  not  have  believed  in  the  divine  de- 
testation of  the  sins  of  the  Canaanites,  unless 
it  had  been  commanded  that  the  whole  people 
should  be  utterly  swept  away.  In  this  case 
there  was  the  further  object  of  removing  all  con- 
taminating influences  from  the  one  people  upon 
earth  whose  vocation  it  was  to  keep  alive  the 
knowledge  of  the  true  God.^ 

But  these  commands  are  sometimes  coupled 
with  an  appeal  to  lower  motives  which  look  like 
the  mere  outcome  of  hereditary  revenge.  God 
says  to  Saul  (1  Sam.  xv.  2,  3),  "  I  remember 
that  which  Amalek  did  to  Israel.  .  .  .  Now  go 
and  smite  Amalek,  and  utterly  destroy  all  that 
they  have.  .  .  .  Slay  both  man  and  woman,  in- 
fant and  suckling."  In  the  light  of  what  has 
been  said,  it  may  be  possible  to  explain  the  ne- 
cessity for  the  destruction  of  Amalek ;  but  why 
should  an  appeal  be  made  for  this  purpose  to 
the  hereditary  national  sentiment  of  revenge  ? 
We  can  only  answer  that  man  is  of  a  mixed 

^  See  Arnold's  Sermons,  vi.  35-37,  quoted  by  Stanley  in 
Jewish  Church,  vol.  i.,  p.  283. 


50  INTRODUCTION. 

nature ;  and  God,  in  leading  him  to  do  His  will, 
has  always  appealed,  and  still  appeals,  not  only 
to  the  highest  motives  of  love  and  duty  and 
gratitude,  but  also  to  self-interest  and  gain.  As 
we  are  constituted,  such  appeals  are  a  help  to 
us,  even  now  in  the  full  sunlight  of  the  gospel, 
in  our  heavenward  path,  with  which  we  could 
not  dispense  ;  how  much  more  to  those  in  their 
spiritual  infancy  in  the  dim  twilight  of  the  law. 
Even  here,  however,  the  appeal  is  not  to  revenge 
for  personal  injuries,  but  to  revenge  for  injuries 
inflicted  long  generations  ago  upon  their  people 
as  the  church  of  God. 

It  is  alwaj^s  to  be  remembered,  moreover,  that 
these  judgments  in  which  the  innocent  were  in- 
volved with  the  guilty  were  purely  temporal  in 
their  character,  like  the  consequences  to  the 
ship's  com^^any  now  of  the  carelessness  of  the 
engineer,  and  have  nothing  to  do  with  rewards 
or  punishments  beyond  the  grave.  It  may  have 
been  that  the  wife  of  Dathan  was  received  into 
paradise,  or  that  some  of  the  children  of  Rahab 
received  the  doom  of  the  impenitent.  These 
judgments  may  be  likened  to  the  earthquake 
which  cuts  off  all  the  inhabitants  of  a  city,  good 
and  bad  alike. 

Still,  it  is  asked,  why  should  the  Israelites 
have  been  made  the  instruments  of  these  judg- 
ments, which  accustomed  the  chosen  people  to 


INTRODUCTION.  51 

deeds  of  cruelty  and  blood,  instead  of  punishing 
the  rest  of  the  Canaanites,  as  Sodom  and  Go- 
morrah had  been  punished,  by  direct  divine 
interposition  ?  A  single  example  may  help  to 
explain  this.  When  Joshua  called  upon  the 
captains  of  the  men  of  war  to  plant  their  feet 
upon  the  necks  of  the  prostrate  kings  of  Canaan 
(Josh.  X.  24),  the  act  seems  to  our  Christian 
apprehension  like  one  of  wanton  insult  to  a 
prostrate  foe  ;  but  to  one  at  all  able  to  enter 
into  the  spirit  of  the  times  it  will  be  seen  in  its 
true  light,  as  a  necessary  means  of  raising  the 
courage  of  the  chosen  people,  and  teaching  them 
not  to  tremble  before  the  might  of  the  idola- 
trous heathen  whom  they  were  to  supplant. 
And,  in  general,  the  lesson  of  God's  anger  against 
Canaanitish  sin  could  in  no  other  way  have  been 
so  impressed  upon  the  Israelites  as  by  making 
them  the  actual  executioners  of  His  wrath. 
With  the  strong  tendency  to  heathen  abomina- 
tions that  they  constantly  displayed,  it  would 
seem  that,  but  for  the  personal  impression  thus 
produced,  there  would  have  been  no  restraining 
them  at  all.  We  do  not  find  that  the  overthrow 
of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  ever  had  any  marked 
moral  effect  upon  their  neighbors. 

These  thoughts  lead  to  the  more  sweeping 
charge  that,  from  Abraham  down  through  all 
their  history,  the  Israelites  are  represented  in 


52  INTEOBUCTION. 

the  Bible  as  the  especial  favorites  of  the  Al- 
mighty, and  whoever  interferes  with  them,  no 
matter  if  he  is  right  and  they  are  wrong,  is  yet 
doomed  to  feel  the  vengeance  of  the  Omnipo- 
tent. It  is  said  that  this  is  just  what  is  found  in 
the  legends  of  every  ancient  people,  and  gives 
good  ground  for  looking  upon  the  Scripture 
records  as  largely  the  human  story  of  a  nation 
who  imagined  themselves  the  especial  favorites 
of  heaven.  This  is  simj^ly  a  question  of  fact. 
Were  these  tribes  really  in  such  a  peculiar  rela- 
tion to  God  that  they  should  have  been  treated 
differently  from  other  people  ?  There  can  be 
but  one  answer  to  this,  if  the  general  course  of 
history  as  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures  is  received 
at  all.  Men  had  increased  in  wickedness  as  fast 
as  in  numbers.  The  race  had  been  wiped  from 
the  face  of  the  earth  by  the  flood,  and  a  fresh 
population  developed  from  the  only  righteous 
family.  Even  this  was  ineffectual ;  nor  was 
the  confusion  of  tongues  more  successful.  Man 
tended  too  rapidly  to  moral  degeneracy  to  be 
restrained  by  any  universal  discipline.  Then  a 
particular  individual  was  selected  to  become, 
with  his  descendants,  the  depositary  of  divine 
truth.  He  was  trained  as  a  childless  wanderer 
for  long  years,  and  his  son  also  in  the  same  way. 
Not  until  the  third  generation  was  any  multi- 
plication  allowed  ;  and  then,  when  the  family 


INTRODUCTION.  53 

was  growing  to  be  a  nation,  it  was  brought 
into  bondage,  and  schooled  for  generations,  first 
under  the  rigors  of  a  servile  condition,  then  in 
the  free  air  of  the  desert,  and  was  placed  under 
a  law  of  minute  detail  and  of  severe  penalty. 
It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  in  God's  dealings 
with  these  patriarchs  and  their  descendants  He 
would  rightly  have  had  regard,  even  more  than 
to  them  individually,  to  the  part  they  were 
called  to  play  in  the  furtherance  of  His  pur- 
poses, and  in  the  preparation  for  that  great  fact 
in  the  world's  history,  the  coming  of  the  Re- 
deemer. Jacob,  e.  g.^  was  promised  the  birth- 
right, and  would  in  any  event  have  received  it. 
He  actually  obtained  it  by  fraud,  and  for  this 
was  punished  by  long  years  of  exile  and  many 
sorrows  ;  but  he  was  allowed  to  retain  the  birth- 
right, because  this  was  a  step  in  the  world's 
progress  to  Christ.  His  descendants  were  again 
and  again  told  that  God's  favor  to  them  was  not 
for  their  own  sake,  for  they  were  a  "  stiff-necked 
and  rebellious  people,"  but  for  the  sake  of  God's 
great  name.  Their  sins  are  continually  recorded, 
as  well  as  their  punishments.  All  this  is  un- 
known in  the  legends  of  other  ancient  people  ; 
there  is  nothing  in  ancient  history  like  it.  If 
these  were  human  records,  they  would  be  like 
others.  Because  they  are  not,  and  because  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  Israelites  had  been  made  the 


54  INTRODUCTION. 

peculiar  people  of  God  to  facilitate  His  purposes 
of  love  in  the  redemption  of  mankind,  therefore 
this  partiality  for  them  must  be  attributed  not 
to  the  imagination  of  the  human  writers,  but  to 
the  divine  revelation  itself. 

In  regard  to  the  so-called  faulty  morality  of 
the  Old  Testament,  we  select  the  most  difficult 
case  to  serve  as  an  example.  In  the  great  war 
between  Israel  and  their  oppressor,  although 
Jabin's  army  had  been  routed,  there  could  be  no 
security  against  a  recurrence  of  the  oppression  as 
long  as  his  general,  Sisera,  lived.  The  Kenites 
occupied  a  neutral  position  between  the  two  par- 
ties, on  friendly  terms  with  both,  yet  always,  on 
the  whole,  attached  to  Israel.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances the  fugitive  Sisera  sought  refuge  in 
the  tent  of  Jael,  the  wife  of  Heber  the  Kenite, 
and  was  received  with  every  demonstration  of 
cordiality  and  friendship.  But  when  the  tired 
warrior  had  fallen  asleep  in  fancied  security, 
she  slew  him  and  showed  his  dead  body  exult- 
ingly  to  the  pursuing  Israelites.  History  has 
instances  enough  of  similar  treachery ;  but  the 
peculiarity  of  this  is  that  the  deed  is  especially 
commended  in  the  song  of  the  inspired  prophet- 
ess, Deborah.  She  not  merely  rejoices  in  the 
result,  but  declares  Jael  as  "  blessed  above  wo- 
men "  for  having  done  the  deed.  It  is  plain 
that  the  act  of  Jael  was  considered  by  her  con- 


INTRODUCTION.  55 

temporaries  as  most  praiseworthy.  They  had 
not  yet  risen  to  a  moral  condition  in  which  they 
could  be  shocked  at  its  treachery  ;  they  saw  in 
it  only  the  brave  deed  of  a  woman  who  had 
faith  enough  in  the  God  of  Israel  to  dare  the 
wrath  of  the  oppressors,  and  by  one  act  to  de- 
stroy the  nerve  and  strength  of  Israel's  enemy. 
The  commendation  of  Deborah,  in  the  midst  of 
this  state  of  moral  childhood,  may  be  regarded, 
in  itself,  either  as  a  mistaken  human  commenda- 
tion of  an  essentially  wrong  act,  or  as  a  divine 
commendation  of  a  zeal  for  God  and  a  trust  in 
Him,  although  this  showed  itself  forth  according 
to  the  light  of  the  times.  It  is  so  difficult  to 
transport  ourselves  in  thought  into  times  far 
different  from  our  own  that  the  former  has 
often  seemed  the  easier  alternative  ;  yet  there 
can  be  no  question  of  the  general  principle  that 
God  does  commend  men,  in  our  time  and  in  all 
times,  for  zealous  and  brave  activity  in  His  ser- 
vice according  to  the  best  light  and  knowledge 
they  can  command,  even  when  it  afterwards 
proves  that  their  views  were  mistaken.  This, 
of  course,  does  not  justify  wrong  deeds  when 
those  who  do  them  anight  know  better  ;  but  in 
Jael's  case,  and  in  others  of  that  time,  the  op- 
portunity for  such  better  knowledge  was  want- 
ing. They  acted  according  to  their  light,  even 
as  we  now,  with  a  clear  conscience  and  with  the 


56  INTRODUCTION. 

approbation  of  our  fellow-men,  do  many  things 
which  in  a  higher  stage  of  existence  may  be 
seen  to  have  been  wrong.  Yet  we  reasonably 
expect  our  heavenly  Father  to  judge  such  acts 
in  view  of  our  imperfect  knowledge  and  of  the 
spirit  which  animated  them.  It  was  in  the 
same  way  that  the  act  of  Jael  was  commended. 
She  knew  no  better,  and  served  God  with  cour- 
age and  zeal  according  to  the  light  she  had.^ 
May  we  never  do  worse. 

The  unrighteous  acts  of  several  of  the  judges 
bring  out  another  important  fact.  Samson  loved 
strange  women  ;  Ehud  treacherously  assassinated 
Eglon ;  and  many  like  deeds  were  done  by  men 
expressly  "  raised  up  by  the  Lord  "  for  the  deliv- 

^  Great  stress  is  sometimes  laid  upon  the  fact  that  Jael 
murdered  Sisera  after  feeding  him,  thus  violating  the  uni- 
versal oriental  law  of  hospitality.  Hence  it  is  argued  that 
she  must  have  known  of  the  immorality  of  her  act.  The  an- 
swer is  ohvious,  that,  so  far  as  this  point  is  concerned,  she 
could  not  have  known  of  it,  for  there  was  no  immorality  about 
it.  This  law  of  protection  to  the  guest  is  a  mere  custom  of 
necessity  in  a  state  of  society  which  has  no  other  bond  of  co- 
herence. It  has  no  moral  character  about  it ;  but  is  merely 
intended  to  fiirnish  the  possibility  of  some  protection  to  life. 
He  who  violates  it,  attacks  the  only  safeguard  for  life  in  the 
community  and  therefore  exposes  himself  to  the  vengeance  of 
the  whole  connnunity,  not  because  his  act  is  considered  im- 
moral, but  because  it  is  looked  upon  as  dangerous.  Jael 
showed  her  zeal  in  braving  even  this  danger  of  making  her- 
self an  outlaw  whose  life  woidd  be  at  the  mercy  of  every  one 
she  met. 


INTRODUCTION.  57 

erance  of  Israel,  and  at  times  when  "  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  "  had  especially  come  upon  them. 
How  could  these  things  be  ?  In  a  less  conspic- 
uous way,  the  same  thing  happens  now.  Men 
are  providentially  raised  up,  and  go  forth,  moved 
by  God's  Spirit,  to  do  good  in  their  day  and 
generation.  Nevertheless,  in  their  human  weak- 
ness and  infirmity  of  judgment,  they  often  do 
many  foolish  and  hurtful  things.  Shall  it  be 
said  that  the  Lord  prompted  them  to  do  these 
things?  By  no  means.  He  prompted  them  to 
do  good,  but  left  the  manner  of  the  doing  to 
the  exercise  of  their  own  faculties.  So  God 
prompted  the  judges  to  deliver  Israel,  but  left 
the  manner  of  it  to  themselves ;  and  they,  in  the 
moral  darkness  in  which  they  were,  took  coun- 
sel perhaps  of  their  passions,  or  at  least  of  their 
prejudices  and  misconceptions  of  the  right. 
These  acts  themselves  were  often  severely  pun- 
ished. Samson's  guilty  love  led  to  his  imprison- 
ment and  death,  and  Jephthah's  rash  vow  turned 
into  bitter  mourning  the  very  hour  of  his  vic- 
tory. But  there  is  no  error  in  the  statement 
that  they  were  "  raised  up  by  the  Lord,"  or  that 
they  acted  under  the  impulse  of  His  Spirit. 
The  mistake  is  in  supposing  that  this  impulse 
guided  them  to  acts  which  were  really  deter- 
mined by  their  own  erring  judgment. 

The  more  general  question  recurs :  Why  should 


58  INTR  OD  UCTION. 

men  have  been  kept  so  long  under  the  tutelage 
of  an  imperfect  system,  and  have  been  taught 
such  incomplete  morality,  that  they  could  do 
these  abominable  things,  either  with  a  clear  con- 
science, or  at  least  without  adequate  sense  of 
their  wi'ong?  Why  should  not  a  higher  stand- 
ard have  been  set  before  them  so  clearly  that 
they  must  have  recognized  polygamy  and  slav- 
ery, murder,  revenge,  and  deceit,  as  in  direct 
opposition  to  God's  holy  will?  Because  they 
were  not  able  to  receive  or  understand  a  higher 
standard.  The  slowness  of  development  of  the 
human  faculties  in  the  race,  as  in  the  individual, 
is  something  in  proportion  to  their  value.  Phys- 
ical prowess  and  skill  is  earlier  and  more  easily 
acquired  than  intellectual,  and  intellectual  than 
moral.  Character  is  the  hardest  and  the  slow- 
est thing  in  its  formation.  There  were  always 
sufficient  indications  of  God's  will  in  His  reve- 
lation, if  men  had  been  able  to  see  them.  The 
same  dispensation  which  tolerated  polygamy  re- 
corded that  "  at  first  God  made  them  male  and 
female  "  ;  the  same  law  which  required  an  eye 
for  an  eye  also  commanded,  "Thou  shalt  not 
avenge."  (Lev.  xix.  18.)  Under  the  education 
of  this  law  a  fair-minded  man  could  see,  when  it 
was  pointed  out  to  him,  that  its  two  great  com- 
mandments, embracing  all  others,  were  a  su- 
preme love  to  God,  and  an  equal  love  to  one's 


INTRODUCTION.  59 

neig-hbor  with  himself.  This  is  the  sum  of  all 
morality,  and  this  is  the  acknowledged  sum  of 
the  teaching  of  the  old  dispensation ;  but  to  the 
recognition  of  this  mankind  must  be  trained, 
like  children,  little  by  little,  and  imperfect  com- 
mands must  be  given  until  they  were  able  to 
rise  to  better.  Men  were  very  wicked,  and 
"  the  law  was  added  because  of  transgressions, 
until  the  promised  Seed  should  come  "  and  bring 
out  the  higher  morality  and  spirituality  which 
all  along  lay  hidden  under  its  temporary  educa- 
tional provisions.  In  all  this  there  is  nothing 
to  show  that  this  imperfect  law  was  the  out- 
growth of  the  ideas  of  its  human  writers ;  if  it 
had  been,  it  would  not  have  been  possible  to 
trace  a  higher  law  beneath  it,  and  it  would  not 
have  been  "  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  to 
Christ."  Since  it  is  marked  by  these  character- 
istics, there  is  but  one  tenable  conclusion  :  It 
was  divinely  given  to  prepare  men  of  dull  spirit- 
ual apprehension  for  a  higher  and  better  law 
ready  to  be  revealed  in  its  time. 

There  are  no  other  classes  of  alleged  error  in 
the  Scriptures  requiring  especial  notice.  The 
treatment  of  the  subject  is  necessarily  incom- 
plete ;  because  the  force  of  an  inductive  argu- 
ment depends  upon  an  examination  of  all  the 
facts,  and  this  is  impossible  here.  But  the  aim 
has  been  throughout  to  take  the  most  difficult 


60  INTRODUCTION. 

facts;  and  if  these  do  not  sustain  the  theory 
that  the  Bible  is  untrustworthy  in  certain  direc- 
tions, because  of  the  erroneous  views  of  its 
human  writers,  there  are  no  others  which  can 
do  so.  It  has  been  attempted  to  show  that  all 
these  so-called  errors  are  at  least  consistent 
with  the  hypothesis  that  they  proceed  from  the 
Divine  Source  of  the  Scriptures,  and  in  many 
cases  are  so  inextricably  involved  with  what  must 
belong  to  that  Source  that  no  other  hypothesis 
is  tenable.  The  consideration  of  the  subject 
would  be  incomplete,  however,  without  mention 
of  the  way  in  which  the  Scriptures  themselves 
treat  the  question. 

Our  Lord  continually  refers  to  them  as  abso- 
lutely reliable  and  true.  He  speaks  of  various 
details  in  them  as  of  "  Scriptures  which  cannot 
be  broken."  He  quotes  even  incidental  pas- 
sages as  conclusive  in  argument.  As  already 
said,  they  are  the  only  authority  to  which  He  de- 
fers, and  yet  He  defers  to  them  in  their  mi- 
nutest points  ;  while  at  the  same  time  He  un- 
folds in  them  a  previously  unknown  richness 
and  depth  of  spiritual  tjruth.  There  are  points 
where  He  has  occasion  to  change  their  teaching, 
as,  e,  f/.,  in  regard  to  the  law  of  divorce  ;  but 
even  there  He  shows  that  He  only  restores  the 
original  will  of  His  Father,  and  He  proves  what 
that  will  was  by  the  same  Scriptures.     He  rec- 


INTRODUCTION.  61 

ognlzes  that  God  had  suffered  that  will  to  be  In 
abeyance  for  a  time,  because  of  the  hardness  of 
men's  hearts ;  but  He  treats  the  law,  thus  suffered 
to  be  imperfect,  as  not  from  man,  but  from  God. 
He  shows,  indeed,  that  much  of  the  older  Scrip- 
tures came  to  its  intended  result  in  Himself  and 
His  teaching,  and  had  no  farther  force  ;  but  this 
fulfillment,  so  far  from  proving  them  human, 
shows  their  divine  character  all  the  more 
clearly,  in  that,  from  the  hoar  ages  of  antiquity, 
they  had  looked  forward  to  and  prej)ared  for 
His  coming. 

His  apostles,  beyond  all  question,  regarded 
the  Scriptures  in  the  same  way.  No  particular 
passage,  admitting  of  any  doubtful  interpreta- 
tion, need  be  referred  to.  The  view  taken 
throughout  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles  is  plain 
beyond  any  possibility  of  doubt.  The  Scrip- 
tures are  everywhere  appealed  to  as  of  authority 
in  small  matters,  as  well  as  in  great.  Their  his- 
tories are  regarded  as  authentic  in  every  partic- 
ular ;  their  precepts  are  made  the  foundation  of 
Christian  teaching  ;  their  prophecies  are  treated 
as  evidence  of  Christian  truth ;  and  their  moral 
teaching  is  abundantly  urged  on  Christian  dis- 
ciples. We  suppose  that  no  one,  whatever  may 
be  his  own  view,  can  fail  to  recognize,  if  he  look 
fairly  at  the  question,  that  the  New  Testament 
writers  believed  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  word  of 


62  INTRODUCTION. 

God,  rather  than  simply  to  contain  it.  This 
belief  we  have  tried  to  show  was  justified  b}^  the 
facts ;  and  if  so,  certain  important  consequences 
follow. 

First,  in  regard  to  the  theory  of  inspiration. 
If  the  Bible  is  thoroughly  true  and  reliable 
(not  taking  into  account  mere  copyists'  errors), 
then,  making  allowance  only  for  such  imperfect 
statements  of  the  truth  or  such  imperfect  com- 
mands as  were  required  by  the  condition  of  the 
men  to  whom  it  was  given,  we  have  before  us 
this  prodigy:  that  during  the  lapse  of  many 
centuries  a  number  of  writers,  of  different  per- 
sonal character  and  of  every  variety  of  culture 
and  position,  writing  with  such  freedom  that 
their  idiosyncrasies  are  plainly  to  be  seen,  and 
unhesitatingly  touching  upon  every  subject  that 
came  in  their  way  —  historical,  ethnological, 
archaeological,  scientific,  and  moral  —  have  been 
preserved  from  error.  This  result  could  not 
have  had  place  in  writings  of  human  origin.  Is 
there  any  other  logical  conclusion  from  this, 
than  that,  whatever  else  be  or  be  not  the  func- 
tion of  inspiration,  its  scope  included  the  pres- 
ervation of  the  Bible  from  error,  and  the  giving 
to  man  of  a  book  on  which  he  may  rely  abso- 
lutely as  the  word  of  God  ? 

Finally,  in  regard  to  exegesis.  The  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture  is  an  easy  matter,  if  the 
interpreter    may    refer    everything    that    seems 


INTRODUCTION.  63 

troublesome  to  the  mistake  of  the  human  writer, 
treating  it  as  of  no  consequence  because  he 
thinks  it  does  not  interfere  with  the  essential 
office  of  God's  word  as  the  teacher  of  religious 
duty.  If,  however,  the  interpreter  must  accept 
all  Scripture  as  given  by  insjDiration  of  God, 
allowing  only  for  the  coloring  of  the  various 
human  writers  and  for  unavoidable  error  in  the 
transmission  of  their  writings,  he  has  a  different 
task  before  him.  He  must  interpret  not  only 
in  view  of  the  opinions  of  the  individual  writ- 
ers, but  also  according  to  the  infinite  knowledge 
and  truth  which  lay  behind  them,  and  which 
exercised  over  them  an  indescribable  but  potent 
influence.  And  he  must  do  this  not  by  subtle- 
ties and  technicalities,  but  by  open  and  manly 
treatment  of  the  text  before  him.  We  do  not 
deny  that  this  requires  thought  and  study,  and 
a  familiarity  with  the  conditions  under  which 
revelation  in  its  various  parts  was  given,  and 
the  circumstances,  character,  and  spiritual  ap- 
prehensions of  the  people  to  whom  it  was  given. 
But  the  study  of  the  Scriptures  under  these  con- 
ditions will  more  than  repay  the  labor  required, 
and  will,  we  believe,  lead  to  the  ever  firmer  and 
firmer  conviction  that  they   are  in  very  truth 

THE   WORD   OF   GOD. 

The  following  treatise  upon  the  principles  of 
Interpretation  is  based  upon  the  position  here 
maintained. 


PART  I. 

THE  PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING 


CHAPTER  I. 


PRELIMINARY. 


On  takino^  into  our  hands  the  Enolish  Bible 
we  find  it  bound  up  in  one  volume  labeled, 
"  The  Holy  Bible,"  and  we  know  that  it  has 
always  been  regarded  with  peculiar  reverence  as 
set  apart  and  distinguished  from  all  other  books. 
On  opening  its  covers  it  professes  on  its  title- 
page  to  be  a  translation,  and  this  fact  at  once 
refers  us  to  its  original  languages  as  necessary 
for  the  full  understanding  of  its  contents.  On 
looking  within,  it  is  seen  to  have  a  diversity,  as 
being  composed  of  two  main  divisions,  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testaments  ;  and  on  further  exam- 
ination, each  of  these  is  seen  to  be  made  up  of  a 
number  of  separate  books  written  by  different 
persons,  at  widely  different  times,  and  with  dif- 
ferent immediate  purposes.  These  are  the  fun- 
damental facts  underlying  any  principles  of  in- 
terpretation. 


PRELIMINARY.  65 

Let  us  look  first  at  its  diversity.  It  contains 
history.  About  one  third  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  made  up  of  historical  narrative,  most  of  it 
anonymously  written,  but  assigned  on  various 
grounds  to  a  succession  of  authors  extending 
over  a  space  of  more  than  a  thousand  years, 
while  considerable  portions  of  the  prophetical 
books  are  also  occupied  with  historical  matter. 
This  history  is  both  oriental  and  extremely 
primitive  in  style,  dwelling  with  great  minute- 
ness upon  certain  incidents  and  passing  over  in 
silence  many  connected  events.  The  history 
throughout  is  regarded  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  people  to  which  it  belonged,  with  only  slight 
notice  of  the  other  nations  among  which  they 
lived.  This  history  also  includes  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  legislation,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  of  the 
ancient  people  of  Israel.  Of  the  New  Testa- 
ment more  than  one  half  (including  the  reports 
of  the  discourses  of  our  Lord)  is  historical.  Of 
course,  the  ordinary  canons  of  historical  criti- 
cism must  be  borne  in  view  in  the  interpretation 
of  these  portions  of  both  Testaments,  however 
they  may  be  modified  by  the  peculiar  character 
of  the  books.  The  questions  of  authorship  and 
of  date,  so  far  as  these  can  be  ascertained,  are 
also  important  factors  in  interpretation.  The 
histories  of  the  Old  Testament  have  more  the 
character  of  chronicles,  are  duplicated  only  to  a 


6Q       PEEFAEATION  FOE  INTEEPEETING. 

small  extent,  and  are  generally  of  tlie  nature  of 
compilations,  in  the  case  of  the  book  of  Genesis 
at  least,  from  documents  of  extreme  antiquity ; 
the  histories  of  the  New  Testament,  on  the  other 
hand,  have  more  the  character  of  memoirs,  writ- 
ten either  by  eyewitnesses  or  by  those  who  de- 
rived their  information  immediately  from  eyewit- 
nesses ;  the  Synoptical  Gospels  are  to  a  large 
extent  parallel  narratives,  and  while  these  books 
are  also  anonymous,  their  authorship  is  far  more 
easily  determined  with  certainty. 

Outside  of  the  histories  the  difference  between 
these  two  parts  of  the  Bible  is  much  greater. 
All  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament,  except  the 
Apocalypse,  is  made  up  of  letters  written  by 
Apostles  or  Apostolic  men  to  churches  or  to 
scattered  believers  in  various  parts  of  the  world 
and  on  various  occasions.  These  contain  doctri- 
nal statements  and  arguments  as  well  as  practi- 
cal exhortations,  with  a  multitude  of  individual 
and  historical  allusions.  A  large  part  of  them 
were  written  by  Paul,  and  his  personal  life  and 
character  becomes  an  important  element  in  their 
interpretation.  Some  of  them  are  of  an  earlier 
date  than  any  of  the  Gospels.  The  closing  book 
is  of  an  apocalyptic  character,  assimilated  some- 
what to  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Ezekiel,  and 
from  its  nature  is  in  many  parts  extremely  dif- 
ficult to  interpret.     On  the  other  hand,  the  rest 


PRELIMINARY.  67 

of  the  Old  Testament  falls  into  two  main  divi- 
sions of  not  very  unequal  size,  the  "  poetical 
books  "  and  the  "  prophecies,"  the  former  oc- 
cupying about  two  fifths  and  the  latter  the  re- 
mainder of  that  part  of  the  Old  Testament  not 
already  classed  as  historical.  The  poetical  books 
are  of  varied  character.  The  book  of  Job  con- 
tains a  short  narrative  of  the  remarkable  expe- 
rience of  that  patriarch,  with  a  prolonged  dis- 
cussion of  the  Divine  government  of  the  world  ; 
the  book  of  Psalms,  itself  by  various  authors 
and  composed  at  various  times,  contains  the 
sacred  songs  and  prayers  of  the  ancient  church 
and  of  some  of  its  most  prominent  members; 
Ecclesiastes,  unlike  the  others,  largely  in  prose, 
is  a  philosophical  discussion  of  "  the  enigma  of 
life  ; "  while  the  Canticles  is  a  short  poetical  book 
of  a  character  peculiarly  its  own.  The  remain- 
ino'  books  of  the  Bible  contain  the  writing's  of  a 
long  series  of  prophets,  in  several  instances  con- 
temporary with  one  another,  but,  from  first  to 
last,  extending  over  a  space  of  four  centuries. 
These  books,  with  some  historical  portions,  are 
chiefly  didactic,  but  have  also,  scattered  through 
them,  visions  and,  in  some  instances,  distinct 
verbal  predictions  of  future  events,  some  near, 
some  lookiug  on  to  the  end  of  time,  but  mainly 
occupied  with  that  which  forms  the  subject  of 
the  New  Testament,  the  new  covenant  of  salva- 
tion in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


68      PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

From  this  brief  summary  it  may  be  seen  to 
how  great  a  diversity  of  subject,  of  time,  and  of 
writers  the  principles  of  Scripture  Hermeneutics 
must  apply. 

There  is  also  important  variety  in  the  lan- 
guages in  which  these  books  were  written.  The 
New  Testament  is  in  Greek  throughout,  but  in 
Greek  of  a  late  type  and  modified  by  an  Ara- 
maic speaking  people ;  it  has  also  been  influenced 
by  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  common  use,  known  as  the  Septuagint,  which 
is  marked  by  a  peculiar  Hellenistic  structure. 
It  has,  therefore,  its  dialectic  peculiarities,  and 
these  are  more  marked  with  some  of  its  writers 
than  with  others.  In  addition,  the  language  is 
necessarily  modified  by  the  nature  of  the  sub- 
ject on  which  it  is  employed,  since  no  heathen 
language  could  possibly  be  a  sufficient  vehicle 
for  the  communication  of  the  ideas  which  Chris- 
tianity first  brought  into  the  world.  Its  inter- 
pretation thus  requires  not  only  an  accurate 
knowledge  of  Greek,  but  also  of  its  Hellenistic 
modifications,  a  familiarity  with  the  facts  and 
the  doctrines  therein  treated,  together  with  the 
Jewish  traditions,  customs,  and  beliefs  which  the 
language  has  been  used  to  express. 

The  great  bulk  of  the  Old  Testament  is  in 
Hebrew,  with  a  few  important  passages  in  Chal- 
dee.    The  Hebrew  fortunately  remained  remark- 


PRELIMINARY.  69 

ably  fixed  daring  the  thousand  years  in  the 
course  of  which  these  books  were  written,  but, 
nevertheless,  it  underwent  some  modification. 
The  fact,  however,  that  there  is  no  other  litera- 
ture in  pure  Hebrew,  and  that  it  had  practi- 
cally become  a  dead  language  before  the  Chris- 
tian era,  leads  to  some  difficulties  of  interpreta- 
tion which  can  only  partially  be  removed  by  the 
study  of  the  cognate  languages  and  by  famil- 
iarity with  the  history,  usages,  and  habits  of 
thought  of  other  oriental  nations. 

A  further  obvious  necessity  to  the  exact  in- 
terpretation of  the  Scriptures  is  the  settlement 
of  their  text.  The  books  of  Scripture  were 
transmitted  to  a  comparatively  recent  date  in 
manuscript,  and  these  manuscripts  have  become 
more  or  less  vitiated  by  the  often  repeated  work 
of  the  copyists.  New  Testament  textual  criti- 
cism is  an  art  requiring  especial  study,  but  forms 
the  subject  of  so  many  separate  treatises  that  it 
need  scarcely  be  considered  here,  although  it 
will  be  spoken  of  briefly  in  a  later  chapter. 
Happily,  its  principles  have  become  so  well  set- 
tled that  the  text  may  be  considered  as  generally 
established,  and  there  remain  comparatively  few 
passages  of  any  kind,  and  still  fewer  of  impor- 
tance, in  which  the  reading  is  still  in  doubt. 

The  same  amount  of  material  does  not  exist, 
nor  has  the  same  amount  of  care  been  as  yet  ex 


70       PEEPARATION  FOB  INTERPRETING. 

pencled  upon  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament. 
There  are  no  existing  manuscripts  of  anything 
like  the  same  relative  antiquity  ;  the  versions 
into  other  languages  have  neither  been  made  as 
near  to  the  date  of  the  original  writing,  nor, 
for  the  most  part,  with  even  an  approach  to  the 
same  scrupulous  fidelity.  To  the  last  remark 
the  Samaritan  text  and  the  Samaritan  version 
may  be  considered  as  to  some  extent  exceptions  ; 
but  these  cover  only  the  Pentateuch.  Still 
further,  we  do  not  have,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
New  Testament,  ample  quotations  of  a  date  not 
very  far  removed  from  that  of  the  books  them- 
selves. On  the  other  hand,  it  is  well  known 
that  in  the  later  centuries  of  their  history  the 
Jews  guarded  the  text  of  their  sacred  books  with 
a  superstitious  reverence,  counting  the  words, 
and  religiously  preserving  even  errors  which 
had  once  been  introduced  in  the  form  or  size  of 
the  letters.  Nevertheless,  on  comparing  parallel 
passages,  it  becomes  certain  that  errors,  espe- 
cially in  the  statement  of  numbers,  do  exist  in 
the  present  text,  and  it  is  a  part  of  the  office  of 
the  interpreter  to  determine  where,  and  to  what 
extent,  conjectural  emendation  is  admissible. 
What  there  is  of  an  apparatus  criticus  for  his 
aid  will  be  spoken  of  hereafter. 

With  all  these  elements  of  variety,  there  still 
exists  a  marked  and   substantial  unity   in  the 


PRELIMINARY.  71 

whole  volume  of  Scripture.  It  is  all  God's 
word,  and  an  attempt  has  been  made  in  the  In- 
troduction to  show  in  what  sense  that  expression 
is  to  be  understood.  There  are  other  books  es- 
teemed sacred  among  people  of  other  religions, 
which,  in  some  cases,  as  in  that  of  the  Yedas, 
have  been  written  at  long  intervals  of  time,  and 
in  these  books  maj  be  found  a  certain  unity 
as  a  necessary  result  of  their  national  origin 
and  their  common  religious  character  ;  but  they 
neither  have  orderly  development,  nor  is  there 
in  them  any  trace  of  a  progressive  revelation. 
The  unity  of  the  Bible  is  very  much  more  than 
this.  It  is  a  unity  of  plan  and  purpose  in  which 
the  end  has  been  seen  from  the  beginning,  and 
all  its  parts  have  been  adjusted  with  reference 
to  that  end.  It  is  a  book  divinely  given  to  en- 
able man  so  to  use  this  present  life  as  to  fit 
him  for  the  life  which  is  to  come,  and  this  pur- 
pose must  always  be  kept  in  view  as  the  under- 
lying thought  of  the  whole  in  every  attempt  at 
its  interpretation.  This  purpose,  moreover,  has 
been  accomplished  by  the  wonderful  plan  of  sal- 
vation through  a  personal  Redeemer,  who  thus 
becomes  the  very  centre  and  object  of  every 
part.  Without  the  recognition  of  these  facts 
many  parts  of  the  Bible  may  seem  obsolete  or 
useless ;  with  this  clue  as  a  guide,  every  part  is 
brought  into  its  true  harmony  and  importance. 


72      PREPAEATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

This  fundamental  unity  at  once  distinguishes 
the  Bible  from  all  other  books,  and  becomes  the 
leading  principle  of  its  interpretation.  In  pass- 
ing from  the  Law  to  the  Gospel,  there  is  a  total 
change  in  the  whole  outward  religious  system ; 
yet  there  is  ample  proof  that  both  were  parts  of 
one  consistent  plan,  and  that  the  former  was  de- 
signed from  the  beginning  as  preparatory  for 
the  latter,  —  that  the  Law  was  our  schoolmaster 
to  bring  us  to  Christ. 


CHAPTER  II. 

GENERAL   KNOWLEDGE   OF   THE   SCRIPTURES. 

There  are  necessarily  two  main  parts  in  any 
treatise  upon  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible ; 
the  first  must  deal  with  the  qualifications  re- 
quired in  the  interpreter ;  the  second,  with  the 
actual  method  in  the  practice  of  interpretation. 

Among  the  many  essential  qualifications  of 
the  interpreter  we  place  first  that  of  a  familiar- 
ity with  the  whole  contents  of  Scripture,  and  a 
good  general  knowledge  of  its  scope  and  design. 
This  is  placed  first,  not  because  in  an  accurate 
and  thorough  interpretation  it  can  suffice  alone, 
but  because  it  is  of  itself  of  more  avail  than  any 
other  single  qualification,  and  because  it  is  neces- 
sary to  possess  this  first  in  order  that  other  qual- 
ifications may  have  their  full  value. 

With  no  knowledge  of  the  original  languages, 
with  no  familiarity  with  history,  or  acquaintance 
with  either  geography  or  archaeology  beyond 
that  furnished  by  the  Scriptures  themselves, 
a  person,  while  he  cannot  possibly  become  a 
thorough  exegete,  may  yet  interpret  fairly  and 
truthfully  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  sacred 


74       PREPABATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

record.  The  Bible  has  been  so  often  and  so  well 
translated,  and  the  English  version  especially  is 
one  of  such  exceptional  excellence,  that  one  can- 
not fail  to  gather  from  it  much  more  than  the 
general  scope  of  the  inspired  word.  There  are 
passages,  it  is  true,  sometimes  of  importance,  in 
which  the  text  has  been  changed  by  later  critical 
research  ;  no  scholar  would  now  think  of  main- 
taining the  genuineness  of  the  testimony  of  the 
three  heavenly  witnesses  in  1  John  v.  7,  and 
few  would  contend  that  the  doxology  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer  was  a  part  of  the  original  record. 
So,  also,  there  are  some  other  passages  in  which 
the  translation  is  grievously  at  fault,  as  in  the 
sad  marring  of  the  glorious  Messianic  prophecy 
of  Isa.  ix.  There  is,  too,  beyond  all  this,  very 
frequently  a  serious  loss  in  the  nicer  shades  of 
expression  almost  inseparable  from  a  translation  ; 
and  to  these  nicer  shades  the  w^ell  furnished  in- 
terpreter must  have  constant  regard.  But  over 
and  above  all  this,  there  is  more  light  to  be 
thrown  upon  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  from 
a  general  knowledge  of  Scripture  itself  than 
from  any  other  single  source. 

When  John  the  Baptist  cried  "Behold  the 
Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world  "  (John  i.  29),  his  meaning  is  to  be  sought 
not  in  any  knowledge  of  the  Greek  words,  for 
they  are  perfectly  w^ell  represented  by  the  Eng- 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE  SCBIPTUBES.        75 

lish ;  nor  yet  in  any  especial  idiom,  for  tlie  sen- 
tence is  entirely  simple  and  easy  of  construc- 
tion ;  but  in  the  recollection  that  John  was  of 
the  priestly  family  of  the  old  dispensation,  and 
spoke  to  men  familiar  with  the  use  of  the  lamb 
under  that  dispensation  in  connection  with  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.  All  that  is  needed  for  the 
interpretation  of  this  text  is  a  familiarity  with 
the  circumstances  of  the  speaker  and  with  the 
sacrificial  system  of  the  dispensation  of  which  he 
formed  a  part.  He  must  have  been  understood 
by  his  hearers  to  point  to  Jesus  as  a  propitiation 
for  the  sin  of  the  world,  and  beyond  this,  in  the 
fuller  light  of  the  New  Testament  revelation,  he 
must  be  understood  by  us  to  have  declared  our 
Lord  to  be  the  antitype  of  whom  the  sacrificial 
lambs  of  old  were  the  types  and  shadows.  So  if 
we  turn  to  the  primeval  promise  to  fallen  man 
given  in  the  curse  upon  the  serpent,  "  I  will  put 
enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  be- 
tween thy  seed  and  her  seed  ;  it  shall  bruise  thy 
head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel  "  (Gen.  iii. 
15),  the  explanation  must  be  sought  in  the  story 
of  the  Bible  itself,  to  which  a  knowledge  of  the 
original  language  can  bring  little  additional  light. 
It  is  plain  from  the  early  story  of  Genesis  that 
this  was  looked  upon  as  a  promise  that  a  man 
should  be  born,  who  would  restore  to  the  race  the 
blessings  lost  by  the  fall,  and  it  is  evident  from 


76      PBEPAEATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

tlie  text  itself  that  this  was  to  be  accomplished 
by  a  struggle  in  which  some  injury  should  be  in- 
flicted upon  man,  while  the  author  of  evil  should 
be  utterly  crushed.  This  promise  appears  to 
have  been  the  hope  and  stay  of  the  human  race 
during  the  ages  (cf.  Gen.  iv.  1 ;  v.  29)  ;  and 
thus,  when  we  read  later  of  a  promise  given  to 
Abram  (Gen.  xii.  3,  etc.)  and  to  his  descendants, 
that  in  his  seed  all  the  families  of  the  earth 
should  be  blessed,  it  would  seem  that  it  must 
have  been  recognized  by  him  and  by  them  as  the 
same  primeval  promise.  As  the  centuries  rolled 
away  we  know  that  an  expectation,  correspond- 
ing to  this  promise,  became  general  and  wide- 
spread, even  among  heathen  nations  ;  but  it  is 
among  the  people  w4io  were  the  chosen  deposita- 
ries of  revelation  that  we  must  look  for  the  full- 
est explanation  of  its  meaning.  There  we  find 
the  promise,  after  being  successively  restricted 
to  the  line  of  Isaac  and  of  Jacob,  and  to  the 
house  of  Judah,  confined  to  the  family  of  David, 
and  its  meaning  more  and  more  sharply  defined 
by  the  various  teachers  in  the  long  line  of  the 
prophets.  The  Messianic  hope,  always  the  rai- 
son  d'etre  of  Israel's  existence,  became  the  cen- 
tral thought  of  all  its  people.  Finally,  in  the 
New  Testament  we  have  the  record  of  the  vic- 
tory won  over  "  him  that  hath  the  power  of 
death,"  and  the  teaching  that  ^' there   is   none 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.        77 

other  name  under  heaven  given  among  men 
whereby  we  must  be  saved." 

It  often  happens  that  even  a  correction  of  the 
text  may  be  rightly  made  on  the  basis  of  the 
English  version  alone.  When,  e.  g.^  it  is  said  in 
2  Sam.  viii.  4  that  David  took  from  the  king  of 
Zobah  700  horsemen,  and  in  the  otherwise  pre- 
cisely parallel  passage,  1  Chr.  xviii.  4,  that  he 
took  7,000,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  one  of  the  num- 
bers has  been  changed  by  the  copyist.  The 
same  thing  is  true  in  several  other  places.  The 
"  men  of  700  chariots  of  the  Syrians  and  40,000 
horsemen  "  of  2  Sam.  x.  18,  becomes  the  "  7,000 
which  fought  in  chariots  and  40,000 ybo^me/i " 
of  1  Chr.  xix.  18.  Compare  also  2  Sam.  xxiii. 
8  with  1  Chr.  xi.  11  ;  1  Ki.  ix.  23  with  2  Chr. 
viii.  10 ;  1  Ki.  ix.  28  with  2  Chr.  viii.  18.  In 
all  these  cases,  except  in  the  knowledge  of  the 
fact  that  numbers  were  anciently  expressed  by 
letters  and  that  these  were  changed  in  decimal 
value  by  dots  placed  over  them,  the  original 
gives  us  no  help  beyond  the  English  translation. 
In  other  cases  of  a  divergence  of  numbers,  as  in 
the  duplicate  census  of  the  captives  returning 
from  exile,  given  in  Ezra  ii.  and  in  Neh.  vii.,  the 
English  only  enables  us  to  see  that  there  must 
be  errors ;  a  careful  knowledge  of  the  original  is 
required  for  their  conjectural  correction. 

On   the   other   hand,  serious    difficulties    on 


78       PBEPABATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

which  a  knowledge  of  the  original  languages  can 
throw  no  light  are  either  much  reduced  or  even 
entirely  cleared  away  by  information  derived 
from  the  Scripture  narrative  itself.  Thus  in 
Mark  ii.  26  our  Lord  speaks  of  Abiathar  as  the 
high  priest  at  the  time  of  David's  eating  the 
shew-bread  ;  but  on  turning  to  the  history  in  1 
Sam.  xxi.  we  find  that  Ahimelech  was  then  the 
high  priest,  and  from  1  Sam.  xxii.  20,  xxiii.  6, 
XXX.  7  that  Abiathar  was  his  son.  Here  is  ap- 
parently an  error ;  but  if  we  look  at  2  Sam.  viii. 
17,  1  Chr.  xxiv.  3,  6,  31,  we  find,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  Ahimelech  is  described  as  the  son  of 
Abiathar.  The  natural  inference,  therefore,  and 
one  which  removes  the  difficulty,  is  that  both 
names  were  borne  alike  by  father  and  son.  The 
genealogy  of  our  Lord  in  Matt,  i.,  with  its  curi- 
ous threefold  division  into  parts  of  fourteen  gen- 
erations each,  might  be  taken  in  Greek  as  well 
as  in  English  for  a  full  record  of  all  the  links 
in  the  ancestry  of  Joseph,  were  it  not  that  many 
intermediate  generations  are  supplied  in  the  Old 
Testament  history,  and  we  thus  come  to  see 
that  the  genealogy  in  Matthew  is  merely  a  sum- 
mary of  the  prominent  links  in  the  line,  so  evi- 
dently arranged  as  a  help  to  the  memory  that 
the  name  of  David  is  actually  repeated,  after 
the  Jewish  fashion,  to  make  out  the  successive 
numbers  of  fourteen  each.     God's  hardening  of 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE  SCRIPTUEES.       79 

Pharaoh's  heart,  spoken  of  in  Ex.  iv.  21  and 
frequently  elsewhere,  and  His  raising  up  of 
Pharaoh  for  the  purpose  of  showing  in  him  His 
power  (Ex.  ix.  16,  quoted  in  Kom.  ix.  17)  are 
not  lessened  in  difficulty  by  an  examination  of 
the  words  in  the  original,  but  are  to  be  explained 
by  the  general  analogy  of  Scripture,  and  in  fact 
present  no  difficulty  when  seen  in  the  light  of 
the  Bible  history. 

But  even  more  than  this  may  be  said.  In- 
stances are  not  wanting  in  which  an  excessive 
regard  for  supposed  niceties  of  language  has 
led  commentators  into  erroneous  interpretations 
from  which  they  might  have  been  saved  by  giv- 
ing more  weight  to  the  context.  The  phrase 
"  saints  of  the  most  High "  in  Dan.  vii.  27 
could  never  have  been  interpreted  (as  it  is  by 
Tregelles  and  others)  of  the  "  saints  of  the  most 
High  places  "  (i.  e.,  the  Jev^s)  if  an  excessive 
linguistic  literalism  had  not  overridden  the 
weightier  considerations  to  be  drawn  from  the 
general  scope  of  the  prophecy.  In  the  same 
way  the  expression  "  the  Israel  of  God  "  in  Gal. 
vi.  16  can  only  be  understood  of  the  Jews  (as  is 
done  by  so  eminent  a  commentator  as  Ellicott) 
by  such  an  excessive  attention  to  the  niceties  of 
the  Greek  as  allows  us  to  suppose  a  self-stultifi- 
cation of  the  Apostle  and  an  utter  contradiction 
of  his  whole  argument  at  the  very  point  of  its 


80      PEEPAEATION  FOR  INTEEPEETING. 

climax.  Several  modern  exegetes  have  main- 
tained tliat  tlie  use  of  the;  pluperfect  in  Gen.  xii. 
1,  "  the  LoKD  had  said  unto  Abram,"  is  an  un- 
fair translation,  because,  it  is  alleged,  the  form 
of  the  Hebrew  verb  here  used  does  not  admit  of 
this  sense,  and  it  has  even  been  called  a  disin- 
genuous attempt  to  conform  the  narrative  to  the 
assertion  of  Stephen  in  Acts  vii.  2  ;  but  however 
this  may  be  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  Hebrew 
form  (which  is  at  least  open  to  a  difference  of 
opinion)  ^  the  fact  of  a  previous  Divine  call  to 
Abram,  in  accordance  with  Stephen's  statement, 
is  made  certain  from  the  continuation  of  the 
narrative  in  Gen.  xv.  7 :  "  I  am  the  Lord  that 
brought  thee  out  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  to  give 
thee  this  land  to  inherit  it."  He  who  would 
become  an  exegete  on  merely  linguistic  grounds, 
without  regard  to  the  general  scope  of  Scripture, 
is  like  a  man  who  would  comprehend  some  beau- 
tifully adjusted  machine  by  the  study  of  each 
particular  wheel  and  screw  without  considering 
the  purpose  of  the  whole,  or  rather  like  one  who 
would  seek  to  understand  a  living  organism  from 
the  microscopic  examination  of  each  muscle  and 
tissue  without  taking  into  account  the  functions 
of  life  and  the  adaptation  of  part  to  part  and  of 
each  member  to  the  whole. 

The   general   knowledge   of    Scripture    here 
^  Vide  Introduction,  p.  33,  note. 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE  JSCRIPTURES.       81 

spoken  of  can  only  be  attained  as  the  result  of 
study  and  reflection.  One  important  means  to 
it  is  the  rapid  reading  of  a  whole  book  of  Scrip- 
ture, if  possible  at  one  sitting,  in  order  to  gain 
a  view  of  its  salient  points  and  its  purpose.  It 
should  be  done  in  a  paragraph  Bible  where  the 
connection  of  thought  is  not  broken  in  upon  by 
the  division  into  chapters  and  verses.  This 
must  be  often  repeated,  for  the  various  books 
are  so  connected  as  parts  of  one  whole  that  the 
more  perfect  knowledge  of  one  helps  to  the  bet- 
ter understanding  of  another.  This  method  of 
obtaining  a  general  view  of  each  book  needs  to 
be  supplemented  and  interchanged  with  a  more 
careful  study  of  its  important  parts.  Especially 
is  it  important  to  compare  one  book  with  an- 
other and  observe  the  method  in  which  the  same 
matter  is  treated  in  each.  A  study  of  subjects 
or  of  historic  characters  treated  in  one  book 
should  be  filled  out  with  an  examination  of  the 
way  in  which  the  same  subject  or  person  is 
spoken  of  elsewhere.  It  is  very  instructive,  e.  ^., 
to  read  in  the  Old  Testament  the  whole  history 
of  Abraham  or  David  rapidly,  so  as  to  impress 
upon  the  mind  the  prominent  features  of  their 
story,  and  then  to  observe  how  they  are  spoken 
of  in  the  Gospels,  the  epistles  of  Paul,  and  the 
epistle  of  James.  Although  the  matter  is  at- 
tended with  some  peculiar  difficulties  which  can 


82      PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

only  gradually  be  i^e moved,  yet  a  knowledge  of 
the  connection  of  the  two  Testaments  will  be 
greatly  increased  by  a  careful  examination  of 
every  quotation  in  the  New  and  of  the  context 
in  which  it  occurs  in  the  Old.  Another  useful 
exercise,  helping  to  this  general  knowledge  of 
Scripture  is  the  tracing  out  the  incidental  allu- 
sions in  certain  of  the  books  to  the  history  of  the 
time  in  which  others  were  written.  Thus  the  con- 
nection of  many  of  the  psalms  with  the  period  in 
which  they  were  composed,  the  allusions  in  the 
epistles  of  Paul  to  the  circumstances  narrated  in 
the  Acts,  and  the  references  in  the  prophets  to 
the  events  and  the  condition  of  the  people  in 
the  age  in  w^hich  they  lived,  all  help  to  that  gen- 
eral knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  of  which  we 
speak.  These  particulars  are  mentioned  only  as 
examples  to  illustrate  the  sort  of  study  required. 
Other  methods  will  readily  suggest  themselves 
to  any  one  who  enters  earnestly  upon  the  work. 
Of  great  value  as  an  aid  in  this  matter  are  the 
introductions  to  the  several  books  given  in  the 
better  commentaries,  and  the  articles  upon  the 
books  and  their  authors  in  the  various  Diction- 
aries of  the  Bible,  and  "  Introductions  "  to  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testaments.  These,  however, 
like  all  other  helps  to  interpretation,  are  always 
to  be  considered  as  secondary,  and  the  informa- 
tion obtained  from  them  must  be  verified  by  the 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.       83 

student's  own  proper  labor.  They  are  useful 
guides,  but  he  must  travel  over  the  road  himself. 

In  one  way  or  another  a  fair  general  know- 
ledge of  the  Bible  as  a  whole  must  be  acquired 
by  every  one  who  seeks  to  become  a  satisfactory 
interpreter  of  its  particular  parts.  Of  course 
this  knowledge  may  be  more  and  more  increased 
to  the  end  of  life,  and  it  is  not  necessary  that 
one  should  have  it  in  perfection  at  the  outset  of 
his  work;  but  it  is  necessary  that  this  know- 
ledge should  have  been  cultivated  in  full  propor- 
tion to  every  other  department. 

Closely  connected  with  this  general  knowledge 
of  the  whole  Bible  is  a  still  more  intimate  ac- 
quaintance with  the  particular  book  which  is  to 
be  the  immediate  subject  of  interpretation. 
However  wide  a  scope  may  be  given  to  inspira- 
tion, the  individuality  of  each  of  the  Scripture 
writers  is  nevertheless  impressed,  and  often 
strongly  impressed,  upon  his  writing.  It  is, 
therefore,  important  to  know  him  as  thoroughly 
as  possible  in  his  own  personality,  in  his  mental 
constitution  and  habits,  in  his  life  experiences, 
and  in  his  position  in  respect  to  those  for  whom 
he  immediately  wrote.  To  this  end  his  life  up 
to  the  time  of  his  writing,  his  style  and  method 
of  expression,  and  his  immediate  object  in  writ- 
ing should  be  carefully  studied.  A  comparison 
of  the  epistles  of  Paul  with  one  another,  written 


84      PEEPAEATION  FOR  INTEEPBETING. 

as  they  were  at  different  periods  of  a  growing 
life,  or  of  the  Psalms  of  David,  written  under 
widely  different  circumstances,  will  he  found 
suggestive  in  this  respect.  When  the  author 
cannot  be  known  with  certainty,  or  when  the 
generally  received  authorship  has  been  ques- 
tioned, the  time  and  circumstances  under  which 
the  book  was  written  can  yet  generally  be  ascer- 
tained with  sufficient  definiteness  to  enable  us  to 
look  out  from  the  writer's  standpoint,  and  thus 
enter  into  the  meaning  of  his  teaching.  Thus 
the  broad  difference  of  tone  between  Deuteron- 
omy and  the  middle  books  of 'the  Pentateuch  is 
seen  to  be  the  natural  result  of  the  change  in 
position  and  purpose  from  that  of  a  legislator 
providing  a  minute  system  of  ceremonial  obser- 
vances for  a  semicivilized  people,  to  that  of  a 
patriarch  at  the  close  of  life,  leaving  his  parting 
exhortations  to  that  people  as  they  were  about  to 
enter,  without  him,  upon  the  inheritance  long 
promised  to  their  fathers.  So  also  the  modifica- 
tion in  some  of  the  details  of  the  legislation  is 
just  that  which  was  required  when  the  people 
were  passing  from  the  compact  arrangement  of 
their  camp  in  the  wilderness  to  their  dispersion  in 
their  settled  homes  (cf.  especially,  Deut.  xii.  15, 
with  Lev.  xvii.  3-5),  and  such  modification  is  in 
itself  both  a  strong  evidence  that  the  books  were 
written  under  the  circumstances  to  which  they 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.       85 

are  attributed,  and  also  that  such  a  change  of 
the  law  must  have  been  promulgated  by  the 
same  authority  as  its  original  enactment,  since 
no  lesser  authority  could  have  ventured  upon 
such  change. 

Along  with  this  knowledge  of  the  personality 
of  the  writer  there  is  needed  also  a  knowledge 
of  the  people  whom  lie  immediately  addressed  in 
their  then  existing  circumstances.  It  is  plain 
enough,  e.  g.,  that  the  cosmogony  of  Genesis 
and  the  legislation  of  Mt.  Sinai  are  largely  af- 
fected by  the  condition  of  the  people  to  whom 
they  were  given  ;  it  would  have  been  idle  at  that 
time  to  have  written  the  one  as  if  for  a  modern 
scientific  audience,  or  to  frame  the  other  as  for 
a  people  trained  under  the  light  and  morality  of 
the  Gospel.  The  fourth  Evangelist  could  hardly 
have  written  as  he  has  at  the  time  when  the 
work  of  the  first  was  completed,  and  the  epistle 
of  James  could  not  have  been  wisely  addressed 
to  the  Galatians  as  Paul  knew  them.  The 
strong  denunciations  of  the  prophets  filnd  their 
justification  in  the  condition  of  the  people  to 
whom  they  spoke ;  Daniel's  address  to  Nebu- 
chadnezzar is  very  different  from  that  to  Bel- 
shazzar,  in  consequence  of  the  different  character 
of  the  two  monarchs :  it  is  evident  that  Ezekiel, 
after  prophesying  to  those  who  had  been  carried 
captive  along  with  himself  and  thus  purified  by 


86       PBEPABATION  FOB  INTEBPBETING. 

some  years  of  affliction,  had  men  of  much  lower 
moral  condition  to  deal  with  when  their  num- 
bers were  increased  by  the  addition  of  those 
who  had  been  left  behind  in  Jerusalem,  and  had 
there  grown  steadily  more  corrupt.  It  is  im- 
possible to  understand  our  Lord's  addresses  to 
the  Pharisees,  the  Sadducees,  and  the  Herodians 
without  some  knowledge  of  these  various  parties, 
and  his  reasoning  with  the  Sadducees  concerning 
the  resurrection  will  seem  inconclusive  unless 
we  remember  that  they  denied  not  only  the  res- 
urrection, but  the  existence  altogether  of  angel 
or  spirit  (see  Acts  xxiii.  8). 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE     GEOGRAPHY     AND     THE     PHYSICAL    GEOG- 
RAPHY  OF    BIBLE   LANDS. 

A  KNOWLEDGE  of  the  simple  geography  of  the 
counti'ies  mentioned  in  Scripture  is  obviously 
essential.  Whether  we  have  to  do  with  the  mi- 
grations of  Abraham  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  to 
Haran,  to  Shechem,  to  Bethel,  to  Egypt ;  whether 
we  are  concerned  with  the  wanderings  of  Israel 
in  the  wilderness,  or  with  their  conquest  of  Pal- 
estine ;  with  the  wars  against  various  nations 
under  the  Judges  or  during  the  monarchy ;  with 
the  exile  or  the  return ;  whether  we  would  fol- 
low Paul  in  his  wide  missionary  activity,  or 
trace  the  footsteps  of  his  Master  in  Judaea  and 
in  Galilee ;  everywhere  it  is  necessary  to  know 
the  geographical  relations  of  the  countries  spoken 
of  in  order  to  understand  the  story. 

Scarcely  less  essential  is  a  knowledge  of  their 
physical  geography,  —  their  climate,  their  pro- 
ductions, their  rivers,  their  soil,  their  caves,  their 
mountains,  and  their  plains.  Of  some  of  them 
the  knowledge  is  so  complete  that  little  needs  to 
be  said ;  while  of  others  the  best  knowledge  at 


88      PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

present  attainable  is  but  imperfect.  The  Bible 
itself,  attentively  read,  goes  far  towards  describ- 
ing tbe  more  familiar  lands,  such  as  Egypt  and 
Palestine  and  the  intervening  desert.  Still  much 
additional  matter,  of  no  little  value  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  sacred  narrative,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  accounts  given  in  ancient  monuments,  and 
in  the  investigations  of  modern  travelers.  The 
nearly  rainless  climate  of  Egypt,  the  depend- 
ence of  its  fertility  upon  the  annual  overflow  of 
the  Nile,  the  system  of  irrigation,  the  method  of 
planting  and  the  succession  of  the  crops,  the 
character  of  the  vegetation,  and  many  such  mat- 
ters need  to  be  studied.  So  also  of  the  group 
of  mountains  around  Sinai,  the  situation  of  the 
fertile  valleys  in  that  generally  desolate  penin- 
sula, the  shrubs,  the  trees,  and  the  precious 
stones  found  there,  and  the  traces  in  many 
parts  of  a  former  more  abundant  vegetation  and 
population.  In  Palestine  we  need  to  know  the 
natural  features  of  the  country  not  merely  as 
bearing  directly  upon  the  narrative,  whether  of 
the  Old  or  New  Testament,  but  also  as  indirectly 
influencing  the  character  of  the  various  tribes 
and  of  the  peoples  who  succeeded  them.  Much 
of  our  Lord's  teaching  comes  to  us  with  fresh 
force  when  listened  to,  as  it  were,  in  the  locality 
in  which  it  was  spoken,  and  in  view  of  the  nat- 
ural scenery  by  which  He  was  surrounded.    The 


GEOGRAPHY  OF  BIBLE  LANDS.  89 

Scripture  writers  say  little  of  the  features  of  tlie 
country  in  wliicli  they  lived ;  they  were  familia,r 
with  it  themselves  and  so  also  were  their  imme- 
diate readers ;  but  no  one  can  stand  where  they 
stood  without  perceiving  a  new  power  in  their 
lano-uajje.  As  this  is  the  case  with  the  actual 
traveler,  so  is  it  true,  in  its  degree,  of  him  who 
takes  the  same  journey  in  thought  by  the  study 
of  maps  and  descriptions  of  the  land. 

It  is  well  to  read  over  the  Bible  itself  at  least 
once  with  the  especial  purpose  of  noting  every 
allusion  to  the  physical  geography  of  its  lands. 
Besides  this,  one  needs  a  thorough  familiarity 
with  the  best  maps  that  can  be  obtained,  and 
these  are  well  supplemented  by  the  excellent 
photographs  of  every  part  of  the  coimtry,  which 
are  now  easily  accessible ;  beyond  these,  one 
should  not  only  study  standard  works,  such  as 
Robinson's  "Biblical  Researches,"  but  should 
also  avail  himself  of  the  most  reliable  books  of 
travels  in  all  the  countries  with  which  the  Bible 
is  concerned,  and  especially  with  the  reports  of 
scientific  explorations,  such  as  Lynch's  "Dead 
Sea,"  the  English  "  Ordnance  Survey  of  the  Si- 
naitic  Peninsula,"  the  various  works  of  the  Pal- 
estine Exploration  Societies,  and  other  works  of 
this  kind. 

The  sort  of  knowledge  here  recommended  is 
not  to  be  suddenly  acquired  by  a  set  study,  but 


90      PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

by  going  over  the  ground  again  and  again,  until 
by  long  dwelling  upon  these  things  they  become 
a  part  of  the  mind's  treasures  to  be  unconsciously 
drawn  upon  as  often  as  there  may  be  occasion. 
Particularly  in  reading  the  various  events  in  the 
life  of  our  Lord,  and  many  of  His  parables,  we 
should  be  able  mentally  to  transport  ourselves 
into  the  midst  of  the  scenes  and  surroundings  in 
which  He  lived  and  spoke.  It  is  not  so  much 
that  any  particular  word  or  phrase  will  acquire 
a  distinctly  new  meaning,  although  this  is  often 
the  case ;  but  the  whole  will  have  a  vividness, 
force,  and  reality  not  otherwise  to  be  obtained. 

This,  like  all  other  knowledge,  is  of  gradual 
acquisition.  The  young  interpreter  may  possess 
it  in  an  imperfect  degree  ^  but  the  essential  thing 
is,  that  he  should  recognize  it  as  one  of  the  nec- 
essary qualifications  of  the  well  furnished  exe- 
gete,  and  should  aim  continually  to  increase  his 
preparation  in  this  as  in  other  respects. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   GENERAL   HISTORY   OF   SCRIPTURE   TIMES. 

The  Bible  was  not  formed  all  at  once  as  a 
complete  work,  but  book  has  been  added  to  book 
as  the  exigencies  of  the  times  required,  and  the 
whole  has  thus  come  to  have  an  essentially  his- 
torical structure.  To  this  structure  the  history 
not  only  of  the  chosen  people  but  of  mankind 
has  contributed  (for  although  originally  given 
to  a  peculiar  nation,  it  was  from  the  first  in- 
tended ultimately  for  the  whole  race).  This 
structure,  apparent  even  upon  its  surface,  is 
more  and  more  developed  by  critical  study,  and 
can  be  understood  only  in  the  light  of  history ; 
for  although  the  Bible  be  of  Divine  origin,  it 
has  yet  been  manifested  historically  and  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  laws  of  history.  Each  partic- 
ular book  of  the  Bible,  too,  had  an  immediate 
and  local  work  to  do  which  forms  the  reason 
why  it  should  have  been  thrown  primarily  into 
the  form  which  it  actually  bears,  although  this 
immediate  and  local  work  was  in  most  cases  not 
only  for  Israel  in  and  by  itself,  but  for  Israel  as 
it  stood  in  its  relations  to  mankind. 


92      PEEPAEATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

Again,  it  is  plain,  as  has  been  urged  in  the 
introduction,  that  the  Bible  is  the  record  of  a 
progressive  revelation,  given  to  mankind  from 
ao'e  to  ao^e  with  more  and  more  distinctness  ac- 
cording  to  man's  capacity  to  receive  it.  To  es- 
timate fairly  the  degree  of  truth  at  any  time 
conveyed,  and  to  guard  against  the  very  com- 
mon but  really  unscholarly  objection,  that  it  was 
not  given  with  greater  fullness,  it  is  necessary  to 
understand,  not  only  the  extent  of  previous  reve- 
lations, but  also  the  actual  moral  condition  of 
the  people  to  whom  it  was  given  ;  and  that  con- 
dition was  largely  affected  by  influences  com- 
ing from  beyond  their  own  national  boundaries. 
History,  in  its  widest  sense,  alone  can  enable  us 
to  understand  this  condition,  and  thus  to  appre- 
ciate the  successive  revelations  as  they  were 
given. 

In  addition  to  these  general  considerations, 
it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  Bible,  directly 
considered,  presents  us  with  the  history  of  the 
chosen  people  as  they  constituted  the  church  of 
God,  and  speaks  of  them  almost  exclusively  in 
this  relation.  After  tracing  the  early  history 
of  mankind  with  extremest  brevity,  it  follows 
one  chosen  line  to  the  call  in  Abraham  of  a 
i:)eculiar  nation,  and  then  treats  of  his  stem  with 
little  reference  to  any  other  people  except  in  so 
far  as  they  directly  interlocked  with  the  history 


HISTORY  OF  SCRIP TUEE  TIMES.  93 

of  Israel.  Its  purpose  is  to  lead  on  to  the  great 
central  fact  of  the  world's  history,  the  redemp- 
tion of  mankind  by  the  Messiah,  and  all  history 
that  does  not  bear  upon  this  is  left  aside.  This 
method  has  undoubtedly  adapted  the  Bible  to 
the  spiritual  wants  of  all  classes  in  all  ages,  and 
nothing  could  be  better  fitted  to  impress  upon 
mankind  the  inexpressible  value  of  our  spiritual 
relations  above  all  other.  At  the  same  time, 
when  the  mind  of  the  student  has  been  led  to  in- 
quire into  the  circumstances  under  which  those 
sjiiritual  relations  have  been  developed,  he  needs 
to  know  other  history.  He  needs  to  take,  be- 
sides the  inner  view  given  in  Scri]3ture,  an  outer 
view  also,  and  to  look  upon  Israel,  not  only  as 
the  Church  of  God,  but  as  a  nation  upon  earth 
among  other  nations. 

There  is  not  very  much  of  authentic  history, 
outside  of  the  Bible,  before  the  time  of  Abra- 
ham, and  what  little  remains  is  but  imperfectly 
understood.  Still  such  indications  as  are  given 
by  the  monuments  of  Egypt  and  the  inscrip- 
tions of  Babylonia,  together  with  the  transcrijits 
of  the  latter  discovered  in  the  ruins  of  Nineveh, 
are  of  great  value.  They  present  mankind  to 
us,  in  the  same  general  light,  indeed,  as  the  early 
chapters  of  Genesis,  but  with  a  filling  out  of  the 
picture  in  many  an  interesting  detail.  The  pyra- 
mids were  already  monuments  of  antiquity  when 


94      PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

Abraham  first  looked  upon  them,  and  the  Chal- 
dean legends  of  his  native  country  were  already 
old  enough  to  have  become  overlaid  with  a  mass 
of  legendary  fable  and  perverted  to  the  pur- 
poses of  polytheism,  when  he  was  called  forth 
from  his  country  and  kindred  to  keep  alive 
in  the  world  the  knowledge  of  the  one  true  God. 
When  we  have  once  become  familiar  with  so 
much  of  genuine  history  as  can  be  gathered 
from  the  mass  of  ancient  legend,  we  find  a  new 
light  dawning  upon  us  in  regard  to  the  necessity 
of  a  church  in  the  world,  and  learn  far  more 
than  we  should  otherwise  have  known  of  the 
mercy  and  loving-kindness  of  the  Father  of  all. 
About,  or  somewhat  before  the  time  of  Abra- 
ham, secular  history  begins  to  have  its  definite 
and  well  established  facts.  These  facts  enable 
us  to  understand  the  circumstances  in  which  this 
patriarch  and  his  descendants  lived.  They  bring 
before  us  two  great  powers,  Egypt  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  combined  nations  of  Mesopotamia 
on  the  other,  struggling  for  supremacy.  Some- 
times it  is  Pharaoh  with  his  chariots  collecting 
the  unwilling  tribute  of  the  nations  along  the 
Euphrates  ;  sometimes  it  is  the  "  Ravager  of  the 
West"  at  the  head  of  his  confederate  tribes 
ruling  over  and  carrying  into  captivity  the  peo- 
ple of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  A  little  later, 
there  is  the  culture  and  civilization  of  Egypt,  in 


HISTORY  OF  SCRIPTURE  TIMES.  95 

the  midst  of  which  the  Israelites  grew  up  to  be 
a  people,  with  its  shocking  popular  polytheism 
and  its  esoteric  monotheism,  with  its  strong  civil 
organization  and  its  highly  developed  priest- 
hood. Then  there  is  Egypt's  protection  of  its 
eastern  outposts  by  the  colonization  on  its  north- 
eastern border  of  the  foreign  race  of  Israel ;  and 
then  comes  (in  what  is  to  us  the  period  of  the 
Judges)  the  record  of  its  oriental  wars,  Egypt 
and  Israel,  though  not  in  alliance,  having  com- 
mon foes,  so  that  Egypt's  prowess  became  the 
occasion  of  Israel's  prosperity,  while  her  depres- 
sion or  occupation  with  internal  troubles  gave 
the  opportunity  for  Israel's  enemies  to  carry  out 
their  schemes  of  oppression.  This  opens  to  the 
interpreter  much  wider  views  of  the  Providen- 
tial ordering  of  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  and 
enables  him  to  understand  much  that  was  ob- 
scure in  the  Scripture  narrative  considered  by 
itself.i 

As  the  history  of  surrounding  nations  be- 
comes more  distinct  with  the  lapse  of  centuries, 

1  [The  view,  stated  in  the  text,  of  the  esoteric  monotheism 
of  the  Egyptian  priests  has  been  called  in  question  by  some  of 
the  later  Egyptologists,  as  has  been  also  the  location  of  the 
land  of  Goshen  upon  the  northeastern  frontier.  There  is,  how- 
ever, no  such  harmony  or  agreement  at  present  among  the 
students  of  Egyptian  antiquities  as  to  compel  a  change  of  opin- 
ion upon  points  which  have  long  been  regarded  as  well  estab- 
lished.    Ed.] 


96      PBEPABATION  FOB  INTEBPBETING. 

it  interlocks  more  and  more  with  the  history  of 
Israel.  In  the  later  times  of  the  monarchy  it  is 
necessary  to  trace  the  parallel  lines  in  the  story 
of  the  surrounding  nations  in  order  to  compre- 
hend that  of  Israel.  The  commerce  between 
the  cities  of  the  coast  and  the  great  empires  of 
the  East,  with  its  stations  and  its  factors  and 
all  their  corrupting  influences,  largely  passed 
through  Palestine,  in  the  midst  of  the  chosen 
people.  The  great  wars  between  those  empires 
and  Egypt  for  the  most  part  rolled  along  the 
Judsean  coast.  The  history  of  Nineveh  and  its 
wars  is  almost  a  necessary  introduction  to  the 
tale  of  the  conquest  and  captivity  of  the  north- 
ern kingdom  of  Israel,  while  that  of  the  south- 
ern kingdom  can  only  be  thoroughly  understood 
after  studying  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  em- 
pire of  Nebuchadnezzar.  To  appreciate  the 
earthly  forces  that  were  concerned  in  the  resto- 
ration from  the  captivity,  the  history  of  the 
Medo-Persian  empire  must  be  studied,  and  to 
enter  into  the  meaning  of  the  prophecies  of 
Daniel  one  is  obliged  to  connect  with  the  ori- 
ental empires,  the  history,  the  conquests,  and 
the  civilization  of  the  successive  great  western 
empires,  the  Greek,  and  the  Roman.  A  know- 
ledge of  the  divisions  of  the  former,  and  of  the 
long  struggles  of  the  kingdoms  of  Alexander's 
successors  with   one   another  can   alone   either 


HISTOBY  OF  SCRIPTURE  TIMES.  97 

make  clear  the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  or  give  us 
a  knowledjre  of  the  noble  efforts  of  the  Macca- 
bees,  which  had  so  vast  an  influence  on  the  later 
character  and  fortunes  of  the  Jewish  people. 
Coming  thus  to  the  Gospel  time,  the  relations  of 
Rome  to  its  subject  peoples  need  to  be  studied, 
not  only  as  respects  the  Jewish  people,  but 
towards  all  the  nations  to  whom  the  Gospel  was 
carried  during  the  period  of  the  New  Testament 
writings.  It  is  necessary  to  understand  not  only 
the  outward  political  history,  but  also  to  enter 
into  the  various  philosophical  systems  in  vogue, 
to  analyze  the  history  of  the  current  religions  of 
the  day,  and  to  trace  to  some  extent  the  rise  and 
fall  of  the  religious  sects  encountered  by  the 
writers  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles.  No  full  un- 
derstanding of  these  writings  can  be  attained 
without  such  knowledge.  The  epistle  to  the  Col- 
ossians,  e.  g.^  requires  of  tbe  interpreter  a  famil- 
iarity with  the  doctrines  of  the  Essenes  and,  in 
connection  with  these,  of  the  already  rising  views 
of  the  Gnostics.  The  religious  and  philosophi- 
cal opinions  of  the  Athenians  need  to  be  studied 
to  appreciate  Paul's  allusion  to  "  the  unknown 
God  "  (Acts  xvii.  23),  or  to  understand  why  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  should  have  seemed 
to  them  so  especially  absurd  (ib.,  32).  The  con- 
dition of  Roman  religious  philosophy  must  be 
known  to  see  what  Pilate  meant  by  his  question 


98       PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

"  What  is  truth  ?  "  (John  xviii.  38)  ;  and  of 
the  attitude  of  Roman  power  towards  new  re- 
ligions, to  understand  the  proconsul's  conduct 
when  Paul  was  accused  before  him,  and  the  his- 
torian's remark  that  Gallio  cared  for  none  of 
these  things  (Acts  xviii.  17).  Sometimes  even 
the  use  and  meaning  of  particular  words  in  the 
New  Testament  is  only  thus  to  be  explained. 
John's  use  of  Xoyo?  (eJohn  i.  1-3,  14)  is  peculiar 
to  himself ;  and  to  see  how  and  why  he  used  it, 
and  what  he  meanf:  to  teach  by  it,  the  inter- 
preter should  be  familiar  with  the  use  of  ^1^^'!?. 
in  the  Jewish  Targums,  and  with  the  philosoph- 
ico-theological  discussions  of  Philo,  as  well  as 
with  the  oriental  doctrine  of  divine  emanations, 
and  the  philosophy  of  Plato.  As  another  and 
far  Less  important  illustration,  may  be  men- 
tioned the  word  Kop(3av  in  Mark  vii.  11,  as  requir- 
ing for  its  explanation  a  knowledge  of  the  law 
of  vows  in  Lev.  xxvii.  1-8,  and  of  the  Pharisaic 
perversion  of  that  law.  Not  infrequently  there 
are  statements  or  allusions  requiring  historical 
knowledge  for  their  interpretation.  The  whole 
point  of  John  Baptist's  reproof  of  Herod  for  his 
marriage  with  Herodias  (Matt.  xiv.  3,  4)  turns 
upon  the  fact,  not  mentioned  in  the  text,  that 
his  brother  Philip  was  still  living. 

Often  the  personal  character  and  life  of  the 
public   men   of   the   time,   as   of  Herod,  or   of 


HISTORY  OF  SCRIPTURE  TIMES.  99 

Gallic,  enters  as  a  factor  into  the  narrative  ; 
and  continually  the  position  of  the  speaker  or 
writer  is  so  affected  by  historical  circumstances 
or  personal  characteristics  that,  without  a  know- 
ledge of  these,  it  is  impossible  to  enter  into  the 
standpoint  of  the  writers  and  thus  come  to 
understand  precisely  what  they  meant  to  say. 
Even  familiarity  with  the  later  history  of  Chris- 
tian institutions  often  throws  light  upon  the 
meaning  of  incidental  notices,  as,  for  example, 
the  repeated  mention  of  the  assembling  of  the 
disciples  "  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  "  is  ex- 
plained by  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day  in 
the  Christian  Church. 

Great  facilities  for  such  historical  study  are 
afforded  by  the  more  modern  commentaries  and 
books  of  reference  ;  yet,  here  as  everywhere,  it 
is  never  to  be  forgotten  that  those  students  stand 
upon  a  firmer  and  broader  ground  who  have 
obtained  this  knowledge  for  themselves  from 
original  authorities,  or  at  least  from  authorities 
who  did  not  have  the  interpretation  of  Scripture 
as  their  object.  Every  opportunity,  therefore, 
should  be  embraced  by  the  student  to  fill  his 
mind  with  the  history  both  of  the  political 
events  and  of  the  philosophies,  religions,  and 
opinions  of  all  the  nations  which  come  in  con- 
tact with  the  sacred  volume,  and  also  with  the 
life  and  character  of  the  more  prominent  heathen 


100    PBEPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

actors  on  the  scene,  so  that  all  these  things  may 
rise  up  unconsciously  in  his  mind,  as  a  part  of 
his  own  personal  knowledge,  as  often  as  he  ap- 
plies himself  to  the  interpretation  of  any  part  of 
Scripture  on  which  they  have  a  bearing. 


CHAPTER  V. 

AKCH^OLOGY   AND   ANTIQUITIES. 

The  subject  of  this  chapter  is  closely  con- 
nected with  that  of  the  last,  and  may  seem,  to 
some  extent,  to  have  been  anticipated ;  but  it 
would  be  a  broad  sense  of  history  which  would 
include  all  that  is  here  intended.  The  archae- 
ology and  antiquities  of  the  following  nations 
have  an  especial  bearing  upon  the  interpretation 
of  the  Bible  :  Egypt ;  the  tribes  of  the  Desert ; 
the  Phoenician  nations ;  the  various  civilizations 
that  dominated  in  turn  the  regions  around  the 
Tigris  and  Euphrates,  going  back  to  the  days 
anterior  to  Abraham,  and  coming  down  at  least 
to  the  Maccabean  period ;  Palestine  itself,  both 
in  its  original  possession,  and  as  the  home  of 
the  chosen  people ;  Greece,  in  its  conquests 
under  Alexander,  and  later  in  its  condition  just 
at  and  subsequent  to  the  Christian  era ;  and 
Rome,  with  all  those  subject  nations  not  yet  in- 
cluded in  this  summary,  particularly  those  of 
Asia  Minor.  Here  is  a  wide  field,  part  of  which 
has  already  been  carefully  explored,  and  the  re- 
sults of  those  explorations  made  easily  acces- 


102    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

sible  ;  part  of  it  is  very  little  known,  and,  for 
want  of  sufficient  data,  is  not  likely  ever  to  be- 
come very  familiar,  but  in  regard  to  which  such 
glimpses  of  information  as  we  have  are  particu- 
larly valuable  ;  and  still  another  part  is  under  a 
rapid  process  of  investigation,  every  year  adding 
largely  to  our  stores  of  knowledge. 

Egypt  has  become  almost  as  familiar  as  the 
classic  lands,  and  has  been  made  to  yield  up 
stores  of  long  buried  information  having  a  most 
intimate  connection  with  large  portions  of  the 
holy  volume.  So  much  of  the  history  of  the 
patriarchs  and  their  descendants  is  bound  up 
with  Egypt,  from  the  days  of  Abraham  down  to 
the  Exodus,  that  its  traditions  and  monuments 
have  long  been  a  storehouse  of  illustrations  for 
the  Old  Testament  commentator.  The  connec- 
tion was  renewed  under  the  reign  of  Solomon 
and  continued  through  the  period  of  the  mon- 
archy, closing  with  so  great  an  emigration  of 
Jews  to  the  land  of  the  Pharaohs  as  to  require 
the  translation  of  the  Septuagint,  a  work  of 
powerful  influence  upon  the  New  Testament 
writers.  Perhaj)s  the  most  important  influence 
of  Egypt  was  upon  the  Mosaic  legislation  and 
ceremonial.  Much  yet  remains  to  be  done  in 
tracing  the  influence  of  the  one  upon  the  other, 
but  that  there  was  such  an  influence,  ef  a  most 
important  character,  cannot  be  doubted  by  those 


ARCHEOLOGY  AND  ANTIQUITIES.      103 

who  consider,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  people 
had  lived  for  so  many  generations  under  the  in- 
fluence of  Egyptian  thought,  and  culture,  and 
ceremonial,  and,  on  the  other,  that  God  has  al- 
ways shown  a  tender  regard  for  the  needs  and 
capacities  of  His  people  by  adapting  His  com- 
mands to  their  condition  at  the  time  they  were 
given.  It  is  to  be  remembered  too,  that,  as  has 
been  already  said,^  with  all  its  outrageous  popu- 
lar creature  worship,  the  religion  of  Egypt  was 
yet  based  upon  an  esoteric  doctrine  of  monothe- 
ism with  which  probably  Abraham,  certainly 
Joseph  and  Moses,  must  have  been  intimately 
acquainted.  The  influence  of  an  hereditary 
priesthood,  the  universal  and  firmly  rooted  be- 
lief in  the  life  beyond  the  grave  and  the  future 
state  of  retribution,  the  high  state  of  advance- 
ment in  the  arts  and  manufactures,  the  more 
prominent  position  of  woman  in  society,  and  a 
multitude  of  other  matters,  must  have  made  a 
deep  impression  upon  a  people  who  grew  to  be 
a  nation  and  lived  for  generations  in  their  midst ; 
and  even  if  it  be  difficult  to  trace  the  positive 
influence  of  some  of  these  things  upon  the  legis- 
lation given  from  Sinai,  it  yet  remains  that  they 
deeply  affected  the  character  and  habits  of  the 
people  to  whom  that  legislation  was  given,  and 
hence  of  necessity,  indirectly  at  least,  that  legis- 
1  Page  95,  note. 


104    PREFAB ATION  FOR  INTERFRETING. 

lation  itself.  As  a  single  instance  of  the  influ- 
ence of  Egypt  upon  the  Israel  of  a  later  day,  one 
needs  but  to  ask  whence  Solomon  derived  the 
idea  of  the  porch  in  front  of  the  temple  (1  Kings 
vi.  3  ;  2  Chron.  iii.  4),  which  had  nothing  corre- 
sponding to  it  in  the  earlier  tabernacle.  A.  glance 
at  a  photograph  of  the  propylon  of  a  temple  in 
the  land  from  which  Solomon  asked  the  daugh- 
ter of  Pharaoh  in  marriage,  will  give  the  answer. 
The  archaeology  of  Babylon  and  Nineveh  is 
important  in  another  direction.  Their  monu- 
mental inscriptions  and  the  records  of  their  clay 
tablets  and  cylinders,  in  so  far  as  yet  exhumed 
and  deciphered,  present  to  view  the  heathen 
legend  corresponding  to  much  of  the  early  narra- 
tives of  Genesis.-^  Some  of  these  may  be  of  but 
little  more  value  than  the  traditions  of  many 
other  nations  concerning  the  creation,  the  fall, 
and  the  flood,  yet  are  more  interesting  as  found 
in  the  locality  near  which  all  such  traditions 
must  have  had  their  origin.  But  others,  such  as 
the  inscription  of  Nebuchadnezzar  on  the  tower 
of  Borsippa,  recording  the  ancient  suspension  of 
the  building  of  the  tower  on  account  of  the  con- 
fusion of  tongues,  bear  such  distinct  testimony 
to  the  Scripture  statement,  as  to  show  that  this 
must  be  interpreted  historically,  and  not  as  an 
allegorical   presentation   of   what   happened   to 

1  Vide  Smith,  Chaldean  Genesis. 


ARCHEOLOGY  AND  ANTIQUITIES.      105 

mankind.^  Others,  again,  like  the  inscription 
of  Nabnnahit,  speaking  of  his  son,  Bel-shar-ezer, 
as  sitthig  also  upon  the  throne,  remove  what 
had  long  been  considered  as  insoluble  difficulties 
from  the  sacred  page.^  The  linguistic  and  eth- 
nological revelations  in  this  unique  literature 
are  of  the  highest  value  to  the  interpreter  ;  and 
the  actual  historical  statements  interlock  strik- 
ingly with  the  narrative  of  the  later  Israelitish 
monarchies.  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the 
ordinary  exegete  can  make  himself  familiar  with 
either  the  language  or  the  character  of  these 
cuneiform  inscriptions,  any  more  than  with  the 
hieroglyphics  of  Egypt ;  but  in  both  cases  the 
interest  in  these  discoveries  is  so  manifold  and 
so  great,  that  the  results  of  the  labors  of  special 
students  are  being  continually  spread  before  the 
public  in  accessible  form,  and  these  results  are 
in  many  cases  so  confirmed  as  the  fruit  of  the 
independent  labor  of  scholars  in  different  lands 
that  they  may  be  accepted  as  reliable. 

These  instances  may  suffice  to  show  the  im- 
portance to^ihe  exegete  of  other  archaeological 
investigations.  The  value  of  a  study  of  Greek 
and  Roman  antiquities  is  so  well  understood  that 

^  Vide  Oppert,  in  Smith's  Dictionary  (Am.  Ed.),  art.  "Con- 
fusion of  Tong-ues,"  Appendix  ;  cf.,  also,  Becords  of  the  Past, 
vol.  vii.,  pp.  131,  132  and  Rawlinson,  Egypt  and  Babylon,  pp. 
6-10. 

2  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  v.,  p.  144;  vide,  also,  Rawlinson, 
as  above,  pp.  111-124. 


106    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

it  does  not  require  to  be  dwelt  upon.  Much  has 
been  done  in  this  matter  by  multitudes  of  schol- 
ars from  old  time ;  but  gleanings  of  great  inter- 
est still  remain  to  reward  the  labor  of  the  modern 
investigator.^ 

It  is  plain  that  the  exegete,  to  be  properly 
furnished  for  his  work,  must  keep  himself  well 
abreast  of  all  modern  archaeological  researches, 
not  only  in  connection  with  the  nations  espe- 
cially mentioned,  but  also  with  others  of  which 
there  is  not  space  to  speak  particularly. 

Another  use  of  such  researches  is  to  put  the 
student  in  possession  of  a  portraiture  of  the 
manners  and  customs,  the  ideas  and  thoughts  of 
nations  who  came  continually  into  contact  with 
the  Hebrews,  and  must  have  exercised  no  small 
influence  over  them,  not  to  speak  of  the  more 
direct  examination  of  the  same  things  among 
the  Israelites  themselves,  valuable  not  only  for 
the  time  to  which  they  immediately  relate,  but 
also  for  all  times  in  the  history  of  that  oriental 
people,  whose  habits  and  customs  had  such  re- 
markable fixity.  ^ 

A  word  only  need  be  said,  in  conclusion,  of 
the  lifelike  reality  wliich  is  given  to  the  narra- 
tives and  the  allusions  of  the  New  Testament  by 
the  knowledge  of  the  surroundings  and  the  cir- 
cumstances in  the  midst  of  which  they  occurred. 

1  For  further  illustration,  vide  chapters  xv.,  xvi.,  on  *'  The 
Use  of  History"  and  "  The  Use  of  Archaeology." 


CHAPTER  VI. 

KNOWLEDGE   OF   NATURAL   SCIENCE. 

The  qualification  of  the  interpreter  now  to  be 
spoken  of  is  not  only  rarely  possessed,  but  its 
value  is  not  appreciated.  It  is  easy  to  see  that 
in  a  few  well-known  instances  the  advance  of 
natural  science  has  essentially  modified  the  com- 
mon interpretation  of  particular  passages,  as, 
e.  g.,  those  which  speak  of  the  rising  and  setting 
of  the  sun,  or  of  the  four  corners  of  the  earth. 
It  is  also  well  known  that  some  serious  difficul- 
ties with  particular  statements  have  been  re- 
moved in  the  same  way,  as  in  regard  to  the 
brittleness  of  the  gold  of  the  caK  in  the  wilder- 
ness (Ex.  xxxii.  20).  The  study  of  the  laws  of 
leprosy  in  Lev.  xiii.,  xiv.,  and  of  many  other 
diseases  mentioned  in  Scripture,  is  greatly  aided 
by  medical  research.  But  it  is  apt  to  be  thought 
that  these  results  of  natural  science  come  to  the 
aid  of  the  interpreter  only  in  a  few  isolated 
cases,  which  can  readily  be  taken  on  trust  at  sec- 
ond hand.  No  view  can  be  more  mistaken.  The 
word  and  the  works  of  God  are  in  some  sort 
parallel  revelations,  and  the  one  must  continually 


108    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

illustrate  and  explain  the  other.  A  knowledge 
of  nature,  in  other  words,  a  knowledge  of  all 
that  is  just  and  true  in  natural  science,  must  di- 
rectly affect  the  interpretation  of  that  large  part 
of  the  Divine  word  which  bears  upon  nature, 
and  must  also  be  a  most  important  factor  in  our 
conceptions  of  the  being  and  the  activity  of  the 
God  of  nature  and  revelation  alike. 

Moreover,  science  is  continually  led  to  the  in- 
vestigation of  questions,  such  as  the  origin  of 
life,  which  had  been  supposed  long  settled  by  the 
accepted  interpretations  of  Scripture,  while  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Bible  deals  unhesitatingly 
with  many  a  point,  such  as  the  creation,  the  in- 
tervention of  the  supernatural  in  the  affairs  of 
the  world,  and  the  resurrection  to  come,  on 
which  it  is  often  thought  that  science  is  entitled 
to  an  opinion.  With  this  constant  interlacing 
of  the  work  of  the  exegete  with  the  work  of  the 
scientist,  of  which  only  a  very  few  instances  have 
been  mentioned,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the 
teachings  of  Scripture  can  be  fairly  interpreted 
without  knowing  what  light  is  cast  upon  them 
by  the  researches  of  science. 

Again,  a  knowledge  of  natural  science  is  nec- 
essary to  any  intelligent  appreciation  of  the 
proper  limits  of  its  domain,  and  hence  of  the 
points  where  the  interpreter  ought  to  be  guided 
by  its  teachings.     The  human  mind  is  so  con- 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  NATURAL  SCIENCE.    109 

stituted  that  it  strives  to  complete  its  cycle  o£ 
truth,  and  the  student  of  Scripture  must  neces- 
sarily have  his  opinions  upon  questions  of  nat- 
ural science  which  stand  closely  related  to  the 
teachings  of  revelation.  If  these  are  formed 
without  scientific  knowledge,  they  will  be  quite 
likely  to  be  formed  erroneously  ;  and  experience 
shows  that,  once  adopted,  they  are  apt  to  be  ad- 
hered to  and  to  be  set  forth  as  if  they  had  been 
distinctly  revealed.  Then  comes  that  unfortu- 
nate result,  that  while  such  opinions  are  found 
to  be  erroneous  and  are  rejected  as  such  by  the 
student  of  science,  they  are  maintained  as  the 
truth  of  the  word  of  God  by  the  unfurnished 
interpreter.  The  so-called  conflict  between  re- 
ligion and  science  has  arisen  in  large  measure 
from  this  source.  The  danger  was  seen  and  a 
warning  note  was  uttered  by  the  wiser  theologi- 
ans of  antiquity.  Augustine  earnestly  enjoined 
the  Christians  of  his  day  not  to  involve  opinions 
on  physical  science  with  the  teaching  of  the 
Bible.  When  better  instructed  unbelievers,  he 
says,  "discover  some  Christian  in  error  in  a 
matter  which  they  themselves  know  thoroughly, 
and  supporting  his  opinion  out  of  our  books, 
how  shall  they  believe  those  books  concerning 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  hope  of  eternal 
life,  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  when  they  think 
them  delusively  written   on    things  which  they 


110    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

can  know  by  actual  experience  or  by  certain  cal- 
culations? How  great  sorrow  and  anxiety  do 
these  rash  dogmatizers  inflict  on  their  wiser 
brethren,  if,  when  they  are  blamed  and  convicted 
of  the  rashness  and  falsehood  of  their  opinion 
by  those  who  are  not  bound  by  the  authority  of 
our  books,  they  seek  to  defend  what  they  have 
said  with  most  inconsiderate  rashness  or  most 
evident  error  out  of  the  same  sacred  books."  ^ 

There  are  certain  of  the  broader  and  grander 
generalizations  of  modern  natural  science  which 
have  a  most  intimate  bearing  on  the  view  to  be 
taken  of  the  being  and  attributes  of  the  Su- 
preme; but  these  generalizations  cannot  be  in- 
telligently held  without  some  knowledge  of  the 
inductions  by  which  they  have  been  reached. 
Such  are,  in  the  first  place,  the  recognition  of  the 
insufficiency  of  nature  for  itself,  and  the  neces- 
sity, therefore,  of  supposing  some  Power  above 
and  beyond,  under  whose  ordering  nature  has 
been  evolved  ;  this  we  recognize  to  be  distinctly 
the  position  of  the  advanced  science  of  our  time. 
Again,  there  can  be  no  firmer  conclusion  of  sci- 
ence than  that  the  whole  cosmos  is  under  the 
government  of  an  immutable  order  which  is 
commonly  described  as  "  natural  law,"  although 
without,  perhaps,  a  very  distinct  recognition  of 
the  meaning  of  the  word  "  law  ;  "  it  is  only  neo- 

1  Aug-.,  De  Genesi  ad  litteram,  I.  xix.  39. 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  NATURAL  SCIENCE.    Ill 

essary  to  understand  this  word  as  a  convenient 
expression  for  the  immutable  will  of  the  Su- 
preme Being,  and  we  are  at  once  brought  to  the 
position  so  much  insisted  upon  in  Scripture,  and 
learn  to  attach  a  fresh  fullness  of  meaning  to  its 
teachings.  This  idea  of  the  unchangeableness 
of  God,  constantly  insisted  upon  in  the  descrip- 
tions of  "  the  Father  of  lights,  with  whom  is  no 
variableness,  neither  shadow  of  turning  "  (Jas. 
i.  17),  is  a  most  important  factor  in  exegesis,  and 
is  brought  into  the  clearest  light  by  the  conclu- 
sions of  science.  It  at  once  removes  all  those 
interpretations,  once  so  current,  which  represent 
our  Heavenly  Father  as  an  arbitrary  or  capri- 
cious Being.  Along  with  this  truth  comes  the 
doctrine  of  the  immanence  of  the  Creator  in 
his  works.  Science  recognizes  that  nature  has 
not  only  ultimately  proceeded  from  a  Power  be- 
yond itself,  but  is  constantly  sustained  by  it.  The 
Force  which  gave  it  being  remains  always  its 
sustaining  cause.  The  interpreter  is  thus  led 
back  again  from  secondary  causes  to  the  con- 
ception of  the  old  Hebrew  seers  of  God  in  every- 
thing ;  all  is  his  work,  and,  as  Paul  expresses 
it,  He  is  "  all  in  all "  (1  Cor.  xv.  28 ;  Eph.  i. 
23 ;  cf.  1  Cor.  xii.  6  ;  Col.  iii.  11).  The  influence 
of  this  conception  upon  the  whole  scheme  of  in- 
terpretation is  plain.  Closely  connected  with 
this  is  still  another  truth,  always  obvious  indeed, 


112    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

but  one  whicli  scientific  researches  have  strongly 
emphasized.  While  the  la;WS  of  nature,  in  other 
words,  the  Divine  will,  remain  unchangeable, 
the  course  of  nature  may  be  greatly  modified  by 
the  intervention  of  intelligence.  This  is  seen 
on  so  large  a  scale  and  under  so  great  variety  of 
circumstance  in  man's  action  upon  the  earth 
that  it  is  difficult  to  set  any  bounds  to  the  modi- 
fication of  the  course  of  nature  which  may  be 
accomplished  by  Infinite  Power  without  becom- 
ing inconsistent  with  Itself.  This  covers  the 
whole  ground  of  the  possibility  of  miracles,  and 
shows  how  they  are  to  be  understood  at  once  as 
evidences  of  the  presence  of  supernatural  power, 
and  yet  as  not  violations  of  the  laws  of  nature ; 
in  fact,  evidences  of  that  Power  because^  like  all 
other  things,  they  must  be  consistent  with  those 
laws  which  are  but  the  expression  of  the  un- 
changeable will  of  God. 

Again,  science,  in  showing  that  nature  is  in- 
sufficient to  itself  and  that  there  must  be  a 
Power  behind  it,  shows  that  this  Power,  in  its 
own  Essence,  must  be  inscrutable  to  man.  The 
infinite  cannot  be  comprehended  of  the  finite. 
Science  thus  helps  us  to  interpret  those  many 
passages  which  declare  that  "  no  man  hath  seen 
God  at  any  time  "  (John  i.  18 ;  1  Tim.  vi.  16), 
that  no  man  by  searching  can  find  him  out  (Job 
xi.  7,  etc.).     This  truth  has  many  and  most  im- 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  NATURAL  SCIENCE.    113 

portant  bearings  for  the  interpreter.  It  shows 
the  necessity  of  a  mediator  that  the  Infinite  and 
the  finite  may  be  brought  together.  It  shows 
the  folly  of  attempting  to  portray  the  Divine 
Being  as  but  an  omnipotent  man ;  and  it  leads 
us  to  expect  to  find  in  His  revelation  indications 
of  that  which  is  beyond  the  grasp  of  the  finite 
mind.  Farther,  this  scientific  truth  of  the  in- 
scrutableness  of  God  in  His  absolute  Essence, 
makes  it  clear  that  any  revelation  of  Himself  to 
man  must  be,  not  absolute,  but  in  terms  adapted 
to  man's  capacity,  and  hence  more  or  less  both 
partial  and  anthropomorphic;  and  that  these 
characteristics  of  revelation  will  be  more  marked 
in  the  spiritual  infancy  of  the  race,  gradually 
lessening  as  a  higher  spiritual  education  is  at- 
tained. This  is  a  most  important  clue  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture.  So  much  has  been 
said  in  this  connection  in  the  introduction  that 
it  need  not  be  enlarged  upon  here  except  to  note 
that  however  else  the  same  conclusion  may  be 
reached,  it  also  comes  as  a  necessary  result  of 
scientific  thought. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  the  value  to 
the  exegete  of  preparation  for  his  work  by  a 
knowledge  of  natural  science.  It  not  merely 
cultivates  his  mind  on  another  side,  and  gives 
him  that  balance  of  thought  necessary  to  the 


114    PBEPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

best  work  in  every  department,  but  it  especially 
enables  him  to  see  how  the  Almighty  is  pre- 
sented to  human  thought  through  His  activities 
in  nature,  and  thus  helps  to  understand  the 
revelation  of  Himself  in  His  word. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE   RELIGIOUS   PREPARATION   OF  THE   INTER- 
PRETER. 

This  chapter  has  been  purposely  deferred  to 
this  point  that  the  religious  qualification  of  the 
interpreter  may  not  seem  to  be  treated  merely 
as  a  matter  of  conventional  propriety,  but  rather 
as  one  of  his  really  necessary  qualifications,  along 
with  others,  though  more  fundamentally  essential 
than  any  other,  to  the  true  understanding  of  the 
Scriptures. 

In  all  interpretation  the  first  requisite  is,  that 
the  interpreter  should  place  himself  in  the  posi- 
tion of  the  writer,  and  study  the  writing  from 
his  standpoint  and  in  reference  to  the  object  he 
had  in  view.  Now  the  one  thing  common  to  all, 
or  nearly  all,  the  writers  of  Scripture  is,  that 
they  were  religious  men  and  wrote  for  a  reli- 
gious purpose.  Only  a  religious  man  can  see 
things  as  they  saw  them,  and  understand  things 
as  they  understood  them.  It  is  often  possible 
for  a  person  to  transport  himself  in  thought  and 
imagination  into  circumstances  and  conditions 
of  mind  and  heart  which  are  not  his  own,  and 


116    PBEPABATION  FOR  IN TEBP BETING. 

thus  come  to  appreciate  that  of  which  he  has 
no  actual  experience,  and  this  must  be  done  in 
many  matters  by  every  modern  interpreter  of  an 
ancient  writer ;  but  it  cannot  be  done  in  regard 
to  their  general  religious  character.  The  differ- 
ence betweeen  the  religious  and  the  irreligious 
man  lies  far  too  deep  down  among  the  ultimate 
facts  of  human  nature.  "  That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh  ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the 
Spirit  is  spirit "  (John  iii.  6)  ;  "  the  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  :  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him  :  neither 
can  he  know  them,  because  they  are  sj)iritually 
discerned "  (1  Cor.  ii.  14).  The  teaching  of 
Scripture  itself  thus  concurs  with  the  abundant 
lesson  of  life,  that  there  is  an  experience  of  all- 
pervading  character  which  some  men  lack,  and 
which  others  have  in  greater  or  less  degree,  and 
this  is  precisely  the  experience  which  enables 
them  to  understand  the  Divine  dealings  with 
man,  and  the  Heavenly  message  to  him.  It  is 
an  experience  which  is  concerned  with  the  obe- 
dience of  the  heart  to  the  will  of  God  ;  and 
unless  the  interpreter's  own  heart  is  thus  obedi- 
ent, he  cannot  expect  to  understand  those  whose 
lives  were  subjected  to  the  will  of  God,  and  who 
wrote  for  the  express  object  of  leading  others  to 
submit  to  the  same  will. 

It  does  not  follow  from  this  that  the  Bible  is 


PEEPAEATION  OF  THE  INTERPRETER.    117 

a  sealed  book,  utterly  incomprehensible  to  the 
worldly  man,  any  more  than  that  it  is  so  to  him 
who  has  no  knowledge  of  its  original  languages, 
or  of  ancient  history ;  for  then  it  must  fail  of  its 
purpose  in  leading  man  on  from  his  natural  state 
to  the  love  and  obedience  of  God.  But  it  does 
follow  that,  since  the  Bible  is  essentially  a  spir- 
itual book,  it  is  impossible  to  enter  into  its 
deeper  and  richer  meaning  until  there  is  a  re- 
ligious harmony  between  it  and  the  spirit  of  the 
interpreter. 

Not  only  were  the  writers  themselves  religious 
men,  but  behind  them,  and  inspiring  them,  was 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Difficult  as  it  may  be  to  de- 
fine the  precise  nature  and  mode  of  action  of 
inspiration,  it  is  plain  that,  in  consequence  of  it, 
the  sacred  writings  are  different  from  what  they 
would  otherwise  have  been.  What  is  there 
said  has  often  a  deeper  meaning  than  the  writers 
themselves  knew,  —  not  another  meaning,  as  if 
they  had  expressed  themselves  ambiguously,  but 
a  fullness  of  meaning  beyond  their  power  of 
penetration.  A  young  man  may  use  truly  words 
expressive  of  the  experience  of  life,  which  will 
come  in  later  years  to  have,  even  to  himself,  a 
force  he  did  not  understand  when  he  first  uttered 
them.  So  the  infants  of  the  spiritual  kingdom, 
under  the  guidance  of  its  Head,  have  so  written, 
that  only  those  under  the  teaching  of  the  same 


118    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

Spirit  can  enter  into  His  meaning,  and  even  with 
them,  a  life  of  spiritual  experience  shall  still  fail 
to  exhaust  the  richness  of  His  teachino-. 

Our  Lord  points  out  to  the  unbelieving  Jews 
that  they  could  not  understand  His  speech,  sim- 
ple enough  in  its  words,  because  their  hearts 
were  alienated  from  the  truth  (John  viii.  43)  ; 
and  again  He  said  that  obedience  to  the  will  of 
the  Father  was  a  necessary  prerequisite  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  doctrine  He  taught  (John  vii. 
17).  His  Apostles  continually  speak  of  the 
need  of  spiritual  enlightenment  in  order  to  know 
the  revelation  made  to  the  Church,  and  they  con- 
sidered those  who  were  "  alienated  from  the  life 
of  God  "  as  having  "  the  understanding  dark- 
ened "  (see  Eph.  i.  18  ;  iv.  18,  etc.).  The  "  be- 
loved disciple,"  in  all  his  writings,  brings  out 
with  especial  fullness  the  fact,  that  the  "  under- 
standing that  we  may  know  Him  that  is  true  " 
is  a  gift  of  God,  given  to  them  that  are  "  in 
His  Son  elesus  Christ  "  (1  John  v.  20,  etc.). 

It  must  then  certainly  be  right,  even  from  the 
intellectual  point  of  view,  to  set  down  a  know- 
ledge and  experience  of  the  religious  life  as 
among  the  foremost  and  chiefest  of  the  neces- 
sary qualifications  of  the  exegete  for  his  woi  k. 
Without  this,  be  may  explain  never  so  accurately 
the  outward  and  superficial  sense  of  the  word  of 
life,  but  he  can  never  penetrate  to  the  meaning 


PREPARATION  OF  THE  INTERPRETER.    119 

of  that  life  itself.  While,  therefore,  all  learning 
and  knowledge  and  study  need  to  be  applied  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  they  must  first 
be  laid  at  the  foot  of  the  cross,  and  there  be 
touched  by  the  enlightening  Spirit  of  God.  In 
this  work  it  is  true  with  an  especial  emphasis, 
Bene  orasse  est  bene  studuisse. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES. 

After  the  more  general  preparation  of  the 
interpreter  spoken  of  in  the  preceding  chapters, 
it  goes  without  saying  that  he  must  have  a 
knowledge  of  the  original  languages.  For  this 
there  is  a  double  reason  :  first,  that  he  may  be 
able  to  ascertain  the  exact  sense  of  the  Divine 
oracles  conveyed  in  those  languages ;  and  sec- 
ond, but  not  less  important,  that  he  may  be  able 
to  enter  into  the  general  tone  and  spirit  of  those 
oracles. 

The  Bible,  and  especially  the  Old  Testament, 
is  in  its  human  form  thoroughly  the  work  of  a 
Semitic  people,  and  bears  the  impress  of  their 
peculiar  genius.  While  that  genius  is  learned 
in  some  measure  from  their  history,  it  is  to  be 
understood  still  more  intimately  from  their  lan- 
guage. Without  a  knowledge  of  this,  the  inter- 
preter can  but  imperfectly  enter  into  the  mind 
of  the  writers. 

The  languages  of  the  Bible  are  the  Hebrew, 
the  Chaldee,  and  the  Greek.     So  small  a  part 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES,    121 

of  the  Old  Testament  is  in  Clialdee,  and  that 
language  differs  so  little  from  the  Hebrew,  that 
a  knowledge  of  it  might  seem  unnecessary  except 
for  the  interpretation  of  the  passages  actually 
written  in  Chaldee.  Those  portions,  however, 
especially  chapters  ii.  and  vii.  of  Daniel,  are  of 
great  importance,  and  the  Biblical  Hebrew,  both 
in  its  very  earliest  form,  before  it  had  become 
completely  differentiated  from  the  Chaldee, 
and  also  in  its  later  development  at  the  time  of 
the  captivity,  when  it  was  directly  influenced  by 
the  Chaldee,  is  only  to  be  fully  understood  by 
the  aid  of  this  dialect ;  moreover,  a  knowledge 
of  it  so  helps  to  the  understanding  of  the  lan- 
guage chiefly  spoken  in  Palestine  by  the  Jews 
of  the  Christian  era,  that  this  also  must  be 
placed  among  the  requisite  apparatus  of  the  Bib- 
lical exegete.  Further,  it  is  only  by  this  that 
the  ancient  Jewish  paraphrases  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, known  as  Targums^  can  be  unlocked, 
and  these  are  often  a  material  aid  to  the  inter- 
preter. 

In  regard  to  the  Hebrew  and  Greek,  both  are 
essential  to  the  interpreter  whether  of  the  Old 
or  of  the  New  Testament.  Although  the  New 
Testament  is  in  Greek,  yet  it  is  in  Greek  largely 
influenced  by  Hebrew,  and  one  must  understand 
Hebrew  to  rightly  appreciate  its  deviations  from 
the  classic  model  as  well  as  from  its  modification 


122    PBEPABATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

ill  the  so-called  kolvt]  SidXeKTos.^  Besides  this,  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament  abound  in  quota- 
tions from  the  Old,  in  reference  to  its  law,  its 
poetry,  and  its  history,  and  in  fact  are  profess- 
edly a  new  revelation  made  within  and  based 
upon  the  old.  As  it  is  impossible  rightly  to 
interpret  the  New  without  a  knowledge  of  the 
Old  Testament,  so  a  knowledge  of  the  language 
of  the  latter  becomes  a  necessity  to  the  under- 
standing of  the  former.  Still  further,  it  is  to 
be  remembered  that  the  language  probably 
spoken  by  our  Lord,  and  in  some  instances  dis- 
tinctly said  to  have  been  used  by  his  Apostles, 
was  a  dialect  called  Aramaic,  so  little  modified 
from  the  Hebrew  as  still  to  be  described  by  that 
name,  as  in  John  xix.  20 ;  Acts  xxi.  40.  So  far 
as  these  portions  are  concerned,  the  Greek  offers 
us  only  a  translation  of  the  words  actually  used. 
While  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  know  in  all 
cases  the  original  of  those  words,  since  Provi- 
dence has  not  seen  fit  that  they  should  be  pre- 

^  The  Attic  dialect  gradually  degenerated  into  what  is 
known  as  the  koiv^  Sic^Ae/cros,  and  on  this  was  founded  the 
so-called  Macedo- Alexandrian  dialect,  which,  becoming  ancient 
in  the  time  of  the  Ptolemies,  spread  from  Alexandria  over  the 
Greek  Asiatic  kingdoms.  In  this  process  not  only  did  words 
often  become  modified  in  sense,  and  new  constructions  come  in, 
as  in  the  history  of  all  languages,  but  in  this  enomious  expan- 
sion of  Greek  culture  and  power,  it  assimilated  to  itself,  and 
was  obliged  to  provide  for,  the  intellectual  needs  of  peoples 
of  many  lands  and  races. 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    123 

served,  yet  oftentimes  a  knowledge  of  tlieir  lan- 
guage will  enable  us  to  interpret  correctly  their 
Greek  translation  where  we  should  otherwise 
be  in  danger  of  going  astray.  Thus  in  Matt, 
xvi.  18,  occurs   the  famous  passage  av  d  XleVpo?, 

Koi   irrl  Tavrrj  rrj    Trirpa    olKO^o/x-qcTdi    /xov    ttjv    ckkA-T^- 

triai/,  where  many  commentators  have  insisted 
upon  the  difference  in  gender  between  the  forms 
TreVpo?  and  TTcrpa.  A  knowledge  of  Greek  alone 
gives  a  reason  for  this  change  in  the  Greek  form, 
Trerpo?,  the  masculine,  being  necessary  as  the  sur- 
name of  a  man,  while  Trirpa  is  also  necessary  as 
the  designation  of  a  foundation,  meaning  a  roch 
in  situ^  while  TreVpos  signifies  only  a  stone.  A 
possible  doubt  here  arises  from  the  fact  that 
TreVpos  is  sometimes,  though  rarely,  used  in  the 
sense  of  Trirpa  in  poetry.  This  doubt  is  at  once 
removed  by  turning  to  the  Chaldee,  where  we 
find  that  both  w^ords  are  represented  by  the 
form  s?:"^2  =  Cephas,  which  John  alone  has  pre- 
served in  the  Gospels  (i.  42),  but  which  occurs 
frequently  in  the  Pauline  epistles  (1  Cor.  i.  12 ; 
iii.  22;  ix.  5;  xv.  5;  Gal.  i.  18;  ii.  9,  11,  14). 
This  was  undoubtedly  the  word  actually  used  by 
our  Lord,  and  scarcely  leaves  room  for  question 
that  He  intended  to  designate  Peter  personally 
as  the  human  foundation  of  His  church,  as  it 
actually  came  to  pass  historically  among  the 
Jews  and  the  Gentiles  alike. 


124    PBEPAEATION  FOB  INTERPBETING. 

Not  less  necessary  to  the  interpreter  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  a  knowledge  of  Greek.  Very 
many  passages  are  quoted  and  interpreted  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  it  is  necessary  to  study 
carefully  that  interpretation.  Broad  views  are 
frequently  there  given  of  large  portions  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  the  interpreter  needs  to 
know  precisely  what  those  views  are.  But 
beside  this  direct  connection  between  the  He- 
brew Old  Testament  and  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment, upon  which  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  lay 
too  much  emphasis,  there  is  a  further  use  of  the 
Greek  in  the  interpretation  of  the  older  Scrip- 
tures by  themselves.  The  earliest  complete 
translation  of  them  was  into  the  Greek  of  the 
Septuagint.  Although  that  translation  is  of 
very  unequal  accuracy,  and  was  evidently  made 
by  men  unequally  skilled  in  Hebrew,  yet  parts 
of  it  at  least  were  made  nearly  three  centuries 
before  the  Christian  era,  and  nearer  than  this  to 
the  time  when  the  Hebrew  was  still  a  living  lan- 
guage, and  when  traditionary  interpretation  was 
still  of  great  value.  While,  therefore,  it  is  often 
plain  that  the  translators  have  quite  mistaken 
the  sense  of  their  original,  and  while  no  gTeat 
reliance  can  be  placed  upon  them  in  passages 
where  the  text  of  the  Hebrew  may  be  supposed 
to  be  vitiated,  yet  the  interpreter  cannot  afford 
to  dispense  with  the  light  of  this  earliest  of  the 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    125 

versions,  made  by  men  who  were  themselves 
Hebrews. 

In  addition  to  these  languages  there  are  sev- 
eral others  of  more  or  less  value  to  the  interpre- 
ter. The  Samaritan  version,  which  extends 
through  the  Pentateuch,  is  of  great  antiquity. 
After  much  discussion  of  its  age,  it  is  now  gen- 
erally considered  to  belong  to  the  time  when 
Manasseh,  with  many  other  priests,  apostatized 
from  Jerusalem  to  Samaria,  and  was  confirmed 
in  his  high-priesthood  upon  Mount  Gerizim  by 
Alexander  as  he  passed  to  his  eastern  conquests. 
This  gives  it  a  considerably  greater  age  than  the 
Septuagint,  and  it  is  also  a  far  more  literal  ver- 
sion. Its  critical  value  is  not  great,  and  it  bears 
evident  marks  of  some  corruption  of  the  Hebrew 
ceremonial ;  but  it  is  still  worthy  of  the  atten- 
tion of  the  interpreter.  In  more  than  a  thou- 
sand places  it  agrees  with  the  Septuagint  in  its 
differences  from  the  Hebrew  ;  while  in  about  as 
many  it  differs  from  them  both  where  they 
agree,  and  in  still  others  where  they  differ,  it 
differs  from  them  both. 

There  are  no  other  versions  before  the  Chris- 
tian era.  Subsequent  to  that  date  there  are 
three  principal  Greek  versions  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, those  of  Aquila,  of  Theodotion,  and  of 
Symmachus.  Only  fragments  have  been  pre- 
served of  any  of  these.     That  of  Aquila  follows 


126    PREPABATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

the  Hebrew  so  servilely  that  its  remaining  por- 
tions are  of  use  in  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew- 
text.  Both  this  and  the  version  of  Theodotion 
were  undoubtedly  prepared  with  a  polemical 
purpose,  in  the  interest  of  Jews  hostile  to  Chris- 
tianity ;  yet  Theodotion's  translation  of  Daniel 
was  so  much  preferred  by  Origen  to  that  of  the 
Septuagint  that  it  was  used  in  its  place  in  the 
Christian  churches,  and  is  now  found  in  the 
printed  editions  of  the  Septuagint.  The  true 
Septuagint  version  was  long  supposed  to  be  lost, 
and  has  only  been  recovered  from  a  single  man- 
uscript ;  from  this  it  is  printed  as  an  appendix 
in  Tischendorf's  Septuagint. 

The  most  important  by  far  of  the  post-Chris- 
tian versions  is  that  of  Jerome,  which  forms  the 
basis  of  the  present  Vulgate.  This  translation 
was  made  at  a  far  earlier  time  than  that  of  any 
existing  Hebrew  manuscripts,  and  long  before 
the  introduction  of  the  Masoretic  vowel  points 
and  accents.  Jerome  obtained  his  knowledge 
of  the  language,  of  the  Hebrew  text,  and  of  the 
details  of  its  meaning  from  the  Jews  of  Pales- 
tine ;  and  as  his  scholarship  was  unquestionable, 
and  his  fidelity  as  a  translator  conspicuous,  his 
version  becomes  an  important  aid  both  in  the 
criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text  and  the  interpreta- 
tion of  its  meaning.  No  other  version  is  of 
equal  value  in  the  Old  Testament.     He  did  not 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    127 

give  the  same  care  to  the  New  Testament,  where 
his  work  was  not  that  of  a  new  translation,  but 
only  a  revision  of  existing  translations,  and  even 
this  was  chiefly  confined  to  the  Gospels.  In  the 
New  Testament  it  is  necessary  to  have  recourse 
to  the  "  Vetus  Latina  "  and  to  the  "  Itala,"  in 
connection  with  Jerome's  version ;  and,  even 
thus,  the  Latin  of  the  New  Testament  is  of 
more  value  for  the  criticism  of  the  text  than  for 
the  interpretation  of  its  meaning. 

Besides  these,  the  Syriac  version  may  be 
warmly  recommended  to  the  exegete,  especially 
in  the  New  Testament,  both  because  of  its  great 
antiquity,  and  also  because  the  language  is  so 
closely  assimilated  to  the  Hebrew  and  Chaldee 
as'  to  throw  no  inconsiderable  light  upon  the 
words  actually  used  by  our  Lord.  The  same 
fact  makes  its  acquisition  very  easy  to  the  He- 
brew scholar.  There  are  a  series  of  Syriac  ver- 
sions extending  from  the  second  to  the  seventh 
century.  The  Arabic  is  much  later  and  of  far 
less  value  as  a  version,  while  that  language  is  so 
full  and  rich  as  to  make  its  acquisition  a  matter 
of  considerable  difficulty.  The  Arabic,  however, 
is  by  far  the  most  complete  of  all  the  Semitic 
tongues,  and  hence  its  great  value  for  purposes 
of  comparative  philology  is  recognized  by  He- 
brew lexicographers.  Great  caution  is  required 
in   its  use  in  this  way,  and  a  constant  recollec- 


128    PEEPABATION  FOR  INTEBPBETING. 

tion  of  the  changes  in  sense  which  words  fre- 
quently undergo  in  cognate  languages.  Other 
ancient  languages  into  which  the  Scriptures 
have  been  translated,  such  as  the  Ethiopic,  the 
Armenian,  and  the  Gothic,  are  of  more  impor- 
tance to  the  New  Testament  textual  critic  than 
to  the  interpreter.  Translations  into  modern 
languages  have  somewhat  the  value  of  commen- 
taries, oftentimes  showing  the  meaning  of  the 
text  adopted  by  scholars  who  especially  devoted 
themselves  to  the  work  of  translation. 


CHAPTEE  IX. 

TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

The  criticism  of  the  text  of  Scripture  is  a 
special  art,  demanding  special  preparation  and 
researches  of  a  kind  so  thorough  and  exhaustive 
that  it  must,  in  the  main,  be  left  as  the  life  work 
of  the  specialist.  The  determination  of  the  text, 
moreover,  is  generally  more  safely  entrusted  to 
other  hands  than  those  of  the  exegete,  since  his 
judgment  is  in  danger  of  being  warped  by  his 
interpretation.  It  would  always  be  rash  in  him 
to  call  in  question  the  common  conclusion  of 
scholars  who  have  made  textual  criticism  their 
especial  study.  But  there  are  many  passages  in 
which  no  such  common  conclusion  has  been 
reached  in  consequence  of  conflicting  evidence, 
and  there  are  others  in  which  the  conclusion  has 
been  based  largely  on  internal  evidence,  and  in 
many  of  these  the  exegete  is  as  competent  a 
judge  as  the  critic.  For  the  sake  of  both  these 
classes  of  passages,  and  also  that  the  exegete 
may  know  the  character  and  force  of  the  evi- 
dence in  other  cases,  it  behooves  him  to  make 
himself  familiar  with  the  principles  of  textual 


130    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

criticism.  He  will  not  need  often  to  apply  them 
independently  ;  but  he  ought  to  know  what  they 
are. 

That  the  text  of  neither  of  the  Testaments  has 
come  down  to  us  in  a  perfect  condition  has  al- 
ready been  shown  in  the  introduction.  It  is  the 
object  of  textual  criticism  to  ascertain  and  re- 
store, as  nearly  as  possible,  the  original  text 
as  it  left  the  hands  of  the  sacred  ijenman.  The 
data  and  the  methods  for  this  purpose  are  quite 
different  in  the  case  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New 
Testaments.  It  will  be  necessary  to  treat  them 
separately,  and  it  is  better  to  speak  of  the  text 
of  the  New  Testament  first,  since  far  more  labor 
has  been  bestowed  upon  it,  the  principles  of  its 
criticism  are  better  settled,  the  data  for  estab- 
lishing it  more  complete,  and  there  is  more  gen- 
eral acquiescence  in  the  results  obtained. 

I.  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

The  "  Textus  Receptus "  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  a  term  variously  applied  to  the  edition 
of  Robert  Stephens  of  1550,  or  to  the  first 
edition  of  the  Elzevirs,  1624.  In  both  cases  it 
was  an  attem^^t,  on  the  basis  of  a  small  number 
of  manuscripts  and  such  research  as  the  times 
allowed,  to  present  a  text  which  should  approach 
as  nearly  as  possible   to   the   original  writing. 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM.  131 

Afterwards,  more  and  better  manuscripts  came 
to  light ;  means  were  found  of  determining  their 
age  within  narrow  limits,  and  of  ascertaining 
their  relative  value  ;  much  attention  was  given 
by  competent  scholars  to  the  art  of  determin- 
ing the  true  reading,  and  a  large  amount  of  val- 
uable data  was  gradually  accumulated.  Keally 
critical  editions  may  be  considered,  however,  as 
beginning  in  1774  with  Griesbach,  whose  labors 
extended  to  1807.  Since  his  time  the  data  have 
been  continually  accumulating,  important  manu- 
scripts have  been  brought  to  light,  versions  have 
been  more  carefully  examined,  and  the  prin- 
ciples of  textual  criticism  have  been  discussed 
and  elaborated  until  they  may  now  be  consid- 
ered as  settled  on  a  firm  basis.  Many  critical 
editions  have  consequently  been  published,  giv- 
ing the  authorities  on  both  sides  for  and  against 
the  various  readings.  Among  the  most  recent 
and  important  of  these,  besides  the  special  work 
of  Lachmann,  are  the  editions  of  Tregelles,  the 
eighth  edition  of  Tischendorf ,  and  that  of  West- 
cott  and  Hort. 

The  data  for  the  determination  of  the  text 
are,  in  the  first  place,  manuscripts.  The  whole 
number  of  manuscripts  containing  any  part  of 
the  New  Testament  is  very  large  ;  but  only  a 
comparatively  small  portion  of  them  contain  the 
whole,  and  of  these  the  greater  part  have  suf- 


132    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

fered  more  or  less  from  the  ravages  of  time. 
These  manuscripts  are  of  unequal  value.  It  is 
plain  that  a  carelessly  written  one  of  the  fif- 
teenth century  cannot  compare  with  a  carefully 
written  one  of  the  fourth  or  fifth.  The  great 
advance  of  textual  criticism  was  made  when  the 
means  were  discovered  of  distinguishing  between 
the  manuscripts  of  more  and  of  less  value.  They 
are  broadly  divided  into  two  classes,  uncials  and 
cursives.  The  former  are  written  throughout  in 
capital  letters,  and  are  referred  to  under  the 
capital  letters  :  first  of  the  Roman  alphabet  (A, 
B,  C,  etc.),  then  of  the  letters  of  the  Greek 
alphabet  unlike  them  (r,  A,  0,  etc.),  and  finally 
the  Codex  Sinaiticus  as  S.  The  latter  are  writ- 
ten in  cursive  characters  and  are  designated  by 
the  Arabic  numerals  1,  2,  3,  etc.  Uncial  was  the 
common  form  of  writing  until  the  middle  of  the 
tenth  century,  while  cursive  began  to  be  used 
towards  the  close  of  the  ninth,  and  became  the 
prevailing  form  from  the  eleventh,  onwards.  In 
general,  therefore,  the  uncials  are  older  than  the 
cursives  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  in  all  cases 
the  older  manuscripts  are  the  better.  It  may 
have  been  that  a  manuscript  of  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury, e.  </.,  has  been  carefully  copied  from  one 
of  the  fourth  now  no  longer  in  existence,  while 
another  of  the  fifth  century  has  only  been  coj^ied 
from  a  contemporary.     There  are  also  great  dif- 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM.  133 

ferences  in  the  care  and  skill  with  which  the 
work  of  the  copyist  has  been  done.  It  is  neces- 
sary, therefore,  to  test  the  manuscripts  and  deter- 
mine which  of  them  contain  the  most  accurate 
text.  This  has  been  done  by  selecting  a  large 
number  of  test  passages  and  determining  the 
true  reading  independently  of  the  manuscripts, 
and  then  observing  which  of  them  correspond 
most  closely  with  the  readings  thus  determined. 
In  this  way  it  has  been  decided  that  the  very 
oldest  manuscripts  are  also  the  best,  and  that  a 
comparatively  few  later  ones  are  to  be  ranked 
next  to  them.  The  joint  testimony  of  these  few 
outweighs  the  authority  of  the  great  mass  of 
inferior  manuscripts.  For  a  fuller  description 
of  the  manuscripts  and  their  classification  and 
relative  value,  reference  must  be  made  to  the  va- 
rious special  works  on  textual  criticism.  None 
of  these  manuscripts  are  earlier  than  the  fourth 
century,  and  there  are  only  two,  W  and  B,  of  that 
age. 

The  next  source  for  the  determination  of  the 
text  is  found  in  the  "  Versions."  The  more  im- 
portant of  these  were  made  with  scrupulous  fidel- 
ity at  an  age  far  anterior  to  the  earliest  existing 
manuscripts.  The  most  important,  as  well  as 
the  most  carefully  studied,  is  the  Latin.  This 
is  known  in  several  forms,  the  oldest  of  which, 
tlie   "  Vetus   Latina,"  had   already   received   a 


134    PREPAEATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

definite  shape  by  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury. It  was  prepared  in  North  Africa,  and  is 
in  barbarous  Latin,  but  follows  the  Greek  text 
with  exceeding  closeness.  Its  manuscripts  are 
referred  to  by  the  small  letters  of  the  Eoman 
alphabet,  a,  b,  c,  etc.,  these  three,  a,  b,  c,  being 
of  far  greater  importance  than  the  others. 
When  this  version  passed  over  to  Northern 
Italy,  the  uncouthness  of  its  language  led,  in 
the  fourth  century,  to  a  revision  known  as  the 
"  Itala,"  ths  manuscripts  of  which  are  designated 
by  the  same  kind  of  letters,  that  marked  f  being 
the  most  valuable  of  them.  Several  other  revis- 
ions were  made  which  are  occasionally  referred 
to,  and  by  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  the 
confusion  had  become  so  great  that  Jerome  was 
requested  to  undertake  a  revision.  His  labor 
was  chiefly  spent  upon  the  Gospels,  and  most 
manuscripts  of  this  revision  are  cited  under  the 
abbreviations,  am.  (Codex  Amiatinus)  and  fuld. 
(Codex  Fuldensis).  This  revision  of  elerome 
became  the  basis  of  the  Vulgate,  which  has 
undergone  many  further  revisions. 

The  Syriac  versions  stand  next  in  value  to 
the  Latin,  and,  like  the  Latin,  exist  in  several 
different  forms.  There  is  evidence  of  the  exist- 
ence of  a  Syriac  translation  of  the  Gospels  at 
least  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury.    There  exists  now  but  a  single  imperfect 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM.  135 

manuscript  (of  the  fifth  century),  the  Cureto- 
nian,  which  is  supposed  to  represent  this  ver- 
sion. The  "  Peshito  "  Syriac,  however,  is  very 
early,  certainly  earlier  than  the  fourth  century, 
and  therefore  earlier  than  any  existing  Greek 
manuscripts.  Other  Syriac  translations  are  the 
"  Philoxenian "  (a.  d.  508),  the  "Harklean" 
(a  revision  of  the  last,  A.  D.  616),  and  the 
"  Jerusalem-Syriac." 

The  Egyptian  versions,  called  respectively  the 
Sahidic  (or  Thebaic)  and  the  Coptic  (or  Mem- 
phitic),  belong  to  the  second  and  third  centuries, 
and  are  of  considerable  value,  although  needing 
further  critical  labor.  The  Gothic  version  of 
Ulphilas  is  certainly  of  the  fourth  century,  and 
the  Ethiopic  of  that  or  the  following  century. 
The  Armenian  belongs  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century. 

All  these  versions  are  used  in  the  determina- 
tion of  the  text,  but  reference  must  be  made  to 
special  works  and  to  the  introductions  and  dic- 
tionaries for  a  fuller  account  of  them. 

The  next  source  for  the  determination  of  tbe 
text  is  in  the  abundant  Patristic  quotations  from 
the  New  Testament.  This  evidence  is  seriously 
lessened  in  value  by  the  habit  of  the  scribes,  in 
copying  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  to  correct 
the  passages  of  Scripture  met  with  so  as  to  bring 
them  into  conformity  with  the  text  current  in 


136    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING, 

their  own  time.  Hence  it  becomes  necessary, 
first,  to  ascertain  what  was  really  the  original 
reading  of  any  of  these  ancient  authors  before 
it  can  be  used  as  an  authority.  Besides  this, 
they  frequently  quoted  loosely,  not  verbatim, 
but  giving  the  sense  in  their  own  words.  It 
frequently  happens,  however,  that  they  quote  ex- 
joressly,  that  is,  they  notice  a  difference  of  ex- 
pression between  parallel  places  in  the  Gospels, 
or  a  variation  between  the  manuscripts  of  their 
day,  and  comment  upon  it.  In  such  cases  their 
opinion  is  of  the  highest  value,  particularly  in 
the  case  of  Origen,  Eusebius,  and  Jei'ome,  who 
were  all  eminent  scholars  and  gave  abundant 
labor  to  the  criticism  of  the  text. 

By  these  three  means,  manuscripts,  versions, 
and  Patristic  quotations,  the  text  is  determined. 
Certain  canons  of  criticism  have  been  put  forth 
by  which  the  external  evidence  thus  furnished 
is  to  be  weighed,  and  certain  other  canons  in 
regard  to  the  value  of  internal  evidence,  of  which, 
also,  due  account  requires  to  be  taken.  Under 
this  system  there  is  a  quite  general  agreement 
as  to  the  true  text  among  critical  scholars,  al- 
though many  unimportant,  and  a  very  few  im- 
portant variations  are  still  to  be  found  in  their 
editions.  The  work  of  criticising  the  text  is  far 
from  being  mechanical,  and  requires  at  once 
scholarship,  experience,  and  sagacity ;  its  results 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM.  137 

are  generally  reliable,  and  it  is  the  part  of  the 
interpreter  generally  to  accept  them  as  the  basis 
of  his  exegesis ;  but  sometimes,  when  the  critics 
differ,  or  when  authorities  are  closely  balanced, 
he  must  exercise  his  own  judgment,  and  needs  to 
have  a  fair  knowledge  of  the  principles  of  textual 
criticism,  that  he  may  exercise  it  intelligently. 

The  subject  is  discussed  in  the  prolegomena 
of  the  various  critical  editions  of  the  Greek 
New  Testament,  in  articles  in  introductions  and 
Bible  dictionaries,  especially  in  that  of  Smith 
in  the  American  edition.  There  are  also  special 
works  on  the  subject,  among  which  may  be  men- 
tioned that  of  F.  H.  Scrivener,  "  A  Plain  Intro- 
duction to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament," 
in  its  second  and  much  improved  edition,  and 
the  smaller  works  of  C.  E.  Hammond,  "  Outlines 
of  Textual  Criticism  applied  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment," and  "  The  Principles  of  Textual  Criti- 
cism "  by  the  author,  originally  published  in  the 
"  Bibliotheca  Sacra "  for  April,  1875,  but  sub- 
sequently thoroughly  revised  and  issued  both 
separately  and  as  an  appendix  to  his  "  Greek 
Harmony  of  the  Gospels." 

II.  Textual  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

We  are  here  upon  very  different  ground  ;  the 
text  itself  is  far  more  ancient  than  in  the  case 


133    PREPABATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  data  for  its  criti- 
cism are  far  more  modern  both  absolutely  and 
relatively.  There  are  but  few  manuscripts  older 
than  the  twelfth  century  of  our  era.  Of  these 
few  none  go  back  to  an  earlier  date  than  the 
ninth  century,  unless  it  be  one  of  the  Pentateuch 
brought  from  Derbend  in  Daghestan  to  Odessa, 
which  purports,  by  its  subscription,  to  have  been 
written  before  A.  D.  580.  Manuscripts  of  the 
Old  Testament,  therefore,  only  help  us  to  ascer- 
tain what  is  known  as  the  Masoretic  text,  and  do 
not  directly  indicate  what  may  have  been  its  ear- 
lier condition.  The  principal  authorities  for  the 
readings  of  the  MSS.  are  the  works  of  Kenni- 
cott  1  and  De  Rossi.^  The  various  readings  of 
both  works  were  condensed  and  printed  in  a 
new  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  by  Reineccius, 
published  by  D.  I.  C.  Doederlein  and  J.  H. 
Meisner,  Leipsic,  1793,  reprinted  at  Halle, 
1818.  The  more  important  readings  of  Ken- 
nicott  and  De  Rossi,  together  with  a  collation 
of  the  readings  of  the  Samaritan,  Septuagint, 
Chaldee,  Syriac,  Vulgate,  and  Arabic,  and 
other  critical  material  may  be  found  in  the  valu- 
able edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  by  the  learned 

1  Vetus  Testamentum  Hebraicum  cum  variis  lectionibus,  two 
vols.,  foL,  0x011.,  1770-80. 

'^  Varies  lectiones  Veteris  Testamenti,  four  vols.,  4to,  Parmae, 

1784-87. 


TEXTUAL  CBITICISM.  139 

Boothroyd,  in  two  vols.  4to,  Pontefract,  1810- 
1816.  More  recently,  important  work  has  been 
undertaken  by  Baer  and  Delitzsch,  availing 
themselves  of  all  the  facilities  and  scholarship  of 
the  day.  They  have  already  published  critical 
editions  of  Genesis,  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  and 
Isaiah,  the  Minor  Prophets,  Daniel,  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  Ezekiel,  Chronicles,  and  the  five 
Megilloth. 

The  compilation  of  the  Masora  is  said  to  have 
begun  in  the  sixth  or  seventh  century,  and  to 
have  extended  to  the  tenth  or  eleventh.  The 
Masora  is  a  collection  of  observations  and  of 
oral  traditions  concerning  the  text.  It  is  con- 
cerned with  a  small  number  of  Tarious  readings 
then  known  to  exist,  with  an  enumeration  of 
the  numbers  of  verses,  words,  and  letters,  and 
observations  about  them,  and  especially  with  the 
vocalization  and  accentuation  of  the  text.  While 
these  matters  often  determine  the  sense  of  the 
text  in  detail,  they  do  not  touch  at  all  upon 
larger  corruptions  which  are  known  certainly  to 
have  existed  then,  and  which  continue  to  the 
present  time. 

Earlier  than  the  Masora  is  the  Talmud.  This 
is  composed  essentially  of  two  parts,  the  Mishna, 
or  text,  compiled  by  R.  Judah,  the  holy,  who  died 
about  A.  D.  220,  and  the  Gemara,  or  commentary 
in  its  twofold  form,  the  Jerusalem,  belonging  to 


140    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  and  the  Baby- 
lonian, about  a  century  later.  The  Talmud,  like 
the  Masora,  notices  a  few  emendations  required 
in  the  text,  but  is  chiefly  valuable  as  attesting 
the  scrupulous  care  with  which  the  text  at  the 
time  was  guarded.  It  will  be  seen  from  these 
statements  how  very  little  there  remains  of  data 
for  the  direct  criticism  of  the  text. 

Turning  next  to  versions,  we  have  those  al- 
ready mentioned  in  the  chapter  on  the  original 
languages.  The  oldest  of  these  is  the  Samari- 
tan, but  it  extends  only  through  the  Pentateuch, 
and  is  separated  from  its  original  by  1,000 
years.  It  is  of  some  value  as  a  witness  to  the 
text  of  the  Pentateuch  at  the  time  of  the  trans- 
lation, but  of  course  can  throw  no  light  upon  the 
corruptions  of  the  previous  millennium,  and  the 
independent  accuracy  of  our  present  copies 
needs  further  critical  examination.  The  various 
readings  of  the  Samaritan  text  were  carefully 
examined  by  Gesenius  in  1815,  and  his  conclu- 
sions, depriving  these  variations  of  any  consider- 
able weight,  have  been  generally  sustained  by 
scholars  since  that  time.  The  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch (both  the  text  and  the  version)  is  printed 
in  the  Samaritan  character  in  the  Paris  Poly- 
glot and  in  that  of  Walton,  and  also  sepa- 
rately in  Chaldee  characters,  edited  by  Blayney 
(Oxon.,  1790).     Its  readings,  as  already  noted, 


TEXTUAL   CBITICISM.  141 

may  be  found  in  Boothroyd's  Hebrew  Bible,  and 
also  in  a  series  of  articles  in  the  "  Bibliotheea 
Sacra."  ^ 

Next  to  this  chronologically,  but  of  more 
importance  both  critically  and  exegetically,  is 
the  Septuagint.  This  translation  was  the  work 
of  the  Jews  of  Alexandria,  and  was  at  least 
begun  in  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus, 
about  B.  C.  280.  It  is  uncertain  whether  more 
than  the  Pentateuch  was  at  first  translated,  but 
it  is  clear  that  the  translation  of  this  is  much 
better  than  of  the  later  books.  The  version  gives 
internal  evidence  of  having  been  prepared  from 
a  Hebrew  text  without  vowel  points  or  division 
between  the  words.  Where,  therefore,  it  gives 
sufficient  evidence  of  fidelity  it  may  represent 
an  earlier  tradition  in  regard  to  the  vocalization 
than  has  been  preserved  in  the  Masoretic  text, 
and  thus  becomes  an  important  authority,  par- 
ticularly in  cases  where  there  are  conflicting 
readings  in  the  present  Hebrew  MSS.  The 
same  thing  may  also  be  said  in  some  cases  in 
regard  to  the  interchange  of  similar  Hebrew  let- 
ters and  even  of  the  transposition  of  letters. 
Noted  instances  of  this  are  in  Psalm  xxii.  17 
(LXX.  xxi.  16)  where  the  printed  Hebrew  is 
nS3 ;  but  several  MSS.  read  "nWD,  and  the  LXX. 
has  wpv^av  x^tpas  fxov  koI  TrdSas  fxov,  and  Aquila,  too, 

1  Bibliotheea  Sacra,  xxxiii.,  265, 533 ;  xxxiv.,  79 ;  xxxv.,  76, 309. 


142    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

(although  with  a  variety  in  the    MSS.)    reads 
7)(Txvva.v.       In  Psalm  xvi.  10  "the  printed  text 
is  ^''"T'^Dn  in  the  plural ;  but  near  269  MSS.  (or 
more  than  half  of  the  whole  known  number)  have 
the  singular  "|T^Dn,  which   is  clearly  confirmed 
by  the  evidence  of  the  Septuagint,  o^Se  Swo-et?  tov 
ocTLov  <rov  tSetv  Stafj^Oopdv."     This  reading  is  con- 
firmed by  all  the  ancient  versions  as  well  as  by 
Acts  ii.  27,  xiii.  35.     It  is  to  be  remembered, 
however,  that  the  Septuagint  has  often  varied 
from  the  Hebrew  intentionally,  as  in  the  change 
from  the   seventh  day  to  the  sixth  in  Gen.  ii, 
2  ;  and  also  that,  since  it  was  for  a  long  time 
the  version  of   the  Old  Testament  in  common 
use  among  Christians,  and  publicly  read  in  the 
churches,  its  text  has  been  corrected  in  some 
instances  from  the  New  Testament,  as,  e.  g.,  in 
Psalms  xiv.    (LXX.   xiii.)   altered  to  conform 
to  the  quotation  in  Eom.   iii.   10-18,  which   is 
really  a  combination  of  quotations  from  Psalms 
xiv.  and  liii.  (LXX.  Iii.).    A  thoroughly  critical 
edition  of  the  Septuagint  is  still  a  desideratum. 
Besides  the  Complutensian  (contained  in  the 
Antwerp  and  Paris  Polyglots)  and  the  Aldine 
editions,  there  are  two  principal  recensions  of 
the  text  of  the  Septuagint :  the  Vatican,  which 
is  published  in  Walton's  Polyglot  and  followed 
in  most  modern  editions,  was  accurately  edited 
by  Bos,  with  various  readings  and  other  critical 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM.  143 

apparatus,  in  two  vols.,  4to,  1709 ;  and  the  Alex- 
andrine, carefully  edited  by  Grabe  and  subse- 
quently republished  with  the  variations  of  the 
Vatican  and  of  three  MSS.  at  Basle,  and  crit- 
ical dissertations,  by  Breitinger,  four  vols.,  4to, 
1730.  The  most  convenient  and  accessible  mod- 
ern edition  is  the  last  one  of  Tischendorf,  in  two 
vols.,  8vo,  1856.  It  follows  the  Vatican  text, 
but  gives  the  various  readings  of  the  Alexan- 
drine, and  other  critical  matter,  and,  especially, 
it  gives  in  an  appendix  the  Septuagint  version 
of  Daniel,  in  addition  to  that  of  Theodotion, 
which  in  that  book,  has  commonly  supplanted  it. 
More  recent  and  of  great  value  is  Field's  edi- 
tion of  what  has  been  recovered  of  Orisren's 
Hexapla.^ 

What  is  known  of  the  other  Greek  versions 
of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion  may  be 
found  in  this  work  of  Field's.  Although  these 
versions  were  all  subsequent  to  the  Christian  era, 
they  are  yet  much  more  ancient  than  the  present 
Masoretic  text. 

Next  in  order  among  the  versions  are  to  be 
placed  the  Chaldee  Targimis  or  paraphrases. 
After  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylo- 
nian captivity,  although  at  precisely  what  time  is 
uncertain,  the  Hebrew  had  become  a  dead  lan- 

^  Origenis  Hexaplorum  quae,  supersunt.    F.  Field.     2  vols., 
4to,  Oxon..  1875. 


144    PBEPABATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

guage  to  such  a  degree  that  it  was  found  desir- 
able to  have  the  Scriptures  interpreted  in  Chal- 
dee,  as  they  were  read  in  the  original  in  the 
synagogues.  These  more  or  less  paraphrastic 
translations  were,  for  a  long  time,  not  allowed 
to  be  committed  to  writing,  but  were  handed 
down  by  oral  tradition.  The  Targumists  them- 
selves were  held  in  little  esteem,  and  their  in- 
terpretations were  considered  in  their  own  time 
as  of  no  scholarly  value.  They  often  deviate 
intentionally  from  the  text  for  purposes  of  ex- 
planation, and  are  therefore  of  more  value  as 
witnesses  to  the  ancient  interjDretation  than  of 
the  ancient  text.  Nevertheless,  with  careful 
and  judicious  use,  they  are  not  without  value 
in  the  criticism  of  the  text,  since  they  probably 
began  to  be  committed  to  writing  before  the 
close  of  the  second  century,  although  the  oldest 
of  them,  in  its  present  form,  is  perhaps  a  cen- 
tury and  a  half  later.  The  most  important  are 
known  as  those  of  Onhelos  on  the  Pentateuch 
(by  far  the  most  literal),  of  Jonathan  Ben  Uz- 
zlel,  and  the  Jerusalem  Targum,  also  on  the 
Pentateuch;  of  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel  on  the 
Prophets,  and  of  Joseph  the  Blind  on  the  Hagi- 
ographa.  A  full  account  of  these  by  Emanuel 
Deutscli  may  be  found  in  Smith's  ''  Bible  Dic- 
tionary," art.  Versions. 

The  translations  thus  far  mentioned  all  stand 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM.  145 

much  in  need  of  critical  labor  upon  their  own 
text.  When  they  shall  have  been  edited  with 
the  same  care  as  the  Latin  versions  they  will 
become  of  far  more  value  in  the  criticism  of  the 
Hebrew  text  than  they  are  at  present ;  meantime 
they  are  to  be  used  only  with  extreme  caution. 

The  remaining  versions  have  already  been 
spoken  of  under  the  head  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  there  is  need  only  to  mention  peculi- 
arities of  them  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament. 

The  Vetus  Latina  exists  only  in  fragments  ; 
Jerome  revised  it  by  comparison  with  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  and  of  this  revision  only  the  books  of 
Job  and  of  Psalms  have  come  down  to  us. 
Afterwards,  he  made  a  new  translation  of  the 
whole  Old  Testament  directly  from  the  Hebrew, 
the  work  occupying  fourteen  years  and  being,  in 
some  of  the  books,  particularly  those  of  Samuel 
and  Malachi,  made  with  great  care  and  with 
repeated  revisions,  while  others,  as  the  three 
books  ascribed  to  Solomon,  were  hastily  exe- 
cuted. Fortunately,  he  has  preserved  in  his 
prefaces  to  the  several  books  an  account  of  the 
care  bestowed  upon  them,  and  his  work  becomes 
a  most  important  testimony  to  the  Hebrew  text 
as  it  existed  at  the  close  of  the  fifth  century. 
The  distinction  between  Jerome's  work  on  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testaments  is  to  be  borne  in 
mind,  —  that  while  the  latter  was  a  revision.,  the 
former  was  a  neio  translation. 


146    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

The  so-called  Peshito  Syriac  was  made  (with 
the  possible  exception  of  the  Psalms)  directly 
from  the  Hebrew  at  a  far  earlier  date.  It 
appears  to  have  been  already  ancient  in  the  time 
of  Ephrem  Syrus  in  the  fourth  century  and  is 
generally  supposed  to  have  closely  followed  the 
first  promulgation  of  Christianity  among  a  Syr- 
iac-speaking  people.  It  probably  belongs  to  the 
second  century.  It  is  printed  in  the  Paris  and 
London  Polyglots,  and  an  edition,  prepared  by 
Professor  Lee  from  a  collation  of  MSS.  (with- 
out, however,  giving  the  authorities)  was  pub- 
lished by  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society 
at  London,  1823.  Since  then  a  considerable 
amount  of  critical  material  has  been  accumu- 
lated by  Dr.  Cureton,  but  still  awaits  publica- 
tion. The  value  of  this  version  is  great  on  ac- 
count of  its  antiquity,  of  the  general  good  state 
of  its  text,  and  of  its  being  in  a  cognate  dialect. 
There  is  also  a  later  version  called  the  Syro- 
Hexa'plar.,  made  from  the  Hexaplar  Greek  text. 

The  Armenian  and  Coptic  versions  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  made  from  the  Septuagint. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  apparatus  criticus  for 
the  criticism  of  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
both  meagre  and  modern  as  compared  with  that 
available  in  the  New.  A  resort,  therefore,  to 
conjectural  criticism  is  justified  in  the  former 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM.  147 

case  to  an  extent  which  would  not  be  allowable 
in  the  latter.  Yet  even  here  it  requires  to  be 
used  with  the  utmost  caution  and  only  in  cases 
where  the  text,  as  it  stands,  is  in  manifest  error, 
and  where  probable  evidence  for  its  correction 
may  be  drawn  from  the  Scriptures  themselves 
or  other  undoubted  authority.  For  example : 
in  1  Chr.  vi.  28  (in  the  Hebrew,  verse  13)  we 
read  in  the  A.  Y.,  "  The  sons  of  Samuel ;  the 
firstborn  Vashni,  and  Abiah."  Correctly  trans- 
lated this  would  read,  "  The  sons  of  Samuel ; 
the  firstborn  and  the  second  Abiah  ;  "  it  is  plain 
that  a  name  has  here  dropped  out  of  the  text 
which  may  be  supplied  by  turning  to  1  Sam.  viii. 
2,  where  we  read,  "  The  name  of  the  firstborn 
was  Joel ;  and  the  name  of  the  second,  Abiah." 
In  1  Sam.  xiii.  1  it  is  said,  "  Saul  reigned  one 
year ;  and  when  he  had  reigned  two  years  over 
Israel,  Saul  chose,"  etc.  Even  the  English 
translation  is  suggestive  of  something  faulty  in 
the  text ;  but  the  Hebrew,  rendered  according 
to  the  analogy  of  all  other  similar  statements, 
reads,  "  Saul  was  year  old  when  he  began  to 
reign,  and  he  reigned  two  years  over  Israel." 
The  numerals  representing  Saul's  age  at  the 
commencement  of  his  reign,  and  the  number  for 
the  tens  in  the  length  of  his  reign  have  evi- 
dently dropped  out  of  the  text,  and  we  have  no 
certain  data  for  supplying  them.     If  both  these 


148    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

numbers  should  be  conjectured  to  be  thirty,  it 
would  agree  well  with  the  general  history  of 
Saul  as  to  his  age  at  his  accession  and  would 
make  his  whole  reign  thirty-two  years.  The  lat- 
ter term,  added  to  the  seven  and  a  half  years  in 
which  the  Israelites  adhered  to  the  house  of 
Saul  before  recognizing  David,  would  also  agree 
with  the  forty  years  assigned  to  Saul  before 
David  became  king,  in  Acts  xiii.  21.  But  it  is 
far  easier  in  such  cases  to  detect  the  error  than 
to  correct  it  with  certainty. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE   PERSONAL   QUALIFICATIONS    OF   THE   IN- 
TERPRETER. 

The  preparation  of  the  interpreter  in  regard 
to  knowledge  having  been  set  forth  in  the  pre- 
vious chaj^ters,  it  is  still  necessary  to  say  some- 
thing of  the  preparation  requisite  in  regard  to 
his  own  mental  condition.  This  cannot,  indeed, 
be  altogether  separated  from  his  religious  prepa- 
ration already  spoken  of  in  Chapter  VII. ;  it  is, 
nevertheless,  a  distinct  point,  and  consists  so 
largely  in  habits  of  mind  which  can  be  formed 
and  controlled,  that  it  demands  at  least  a  brief 
treatment  as  essential  to  the  success  of  the  exe- 
gete.  The  subject  naturally  falls  into  several 
parts,  of  which  may  be  placed  first, 

I.  Willingness  to  take  Trouble. 

This  is  essential  to  all  serious  and  worthy  ac- 
quisition in  everything ;  conscientious  and  pains- 
taking labor  is  the  necessary  condition  of  all 
work  of  real  value  to  ourselves  or  others,  but 
it  needs  here  to  be  especially  insisted  upon.  It 
is  exceedingly  easy,  on  the   one  side,  to  take 


150    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

interpretations  at  second  hand,  and  to  fall  into  a 
system  devised  by  others,  without  serious  exam- 
ination as  to  whether  it  is  true  or  not ;  and  on 
the  other  side,  to  dash  off,  without  system,  into 
whatever  interpretations  may  strike  the  fancy 
at  the  moment,  or  may  happen  to  fall  in  with 
preconceived  notions.  Hence,  it  seems  to  many 
lost  labor  to  spend  time  and  thought  and  prayer, 
either  on  the  elaboration  of  general  principles  of 
interpretation  which  shall  guide  us  in  particular 
cases,  or,  when  those  particular  cases  arise,  to 
consider  whether  our  interpretation  is  in  accord- 
ance with  such  principles  as  have  been  already 
established.  Has  it  not  been  already  pointed 
out,  it  may  be  asked,  that  the  humble  and  devout 
Christian  will  often  reach  a  more  true  and  just 
interpretation  of  the  essential  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture than  one  who  approaches  it  in  a  wrong 
spirit,  although  fortified  with  all  the  learning 
dwelt  upon  in  the  preceding  pages?  This  is 
very  true  ;  but,  on  the  one  hand,  it  is  to  be  re- 
membered that  such  a  person  not  only  comes 
to  the  Scriptures  with  deep  and  usually  long 
preparation  in  the  most  important  point  of  all, 
—  the  spiritual  preparation  of  the  heart ;  and 
on  the  other,  that  such  persons  usually  confine 
themselves  in  their  interpretations  to  the  broad 
features  and  the  essential  teachings  of  Scripture, 
and  that,  when  they  have  presumed  to  go  beyond 


PERSONAL  QUALIFICATIONS.  151 

tliis,  and  interpret  passages  of  difficulty,  they 
liave  not  infrequently  furnished  as  sad  instances 
as  the  world  has  ever  seen  of  strange  distortions 
of  the  truth.  But  again,  another  may  say :  Such 
or  such  a  commentator  was  far  more  learned 
than  I  can  ever  hope  to  be ;  why  am  I  not  safer 
and  more  likely  to  be  right  in  taking  his  opin- 
ions and  following  them  throughout,  than  in  at- 
tempting to  find  out  the  meaning  of  the  Scrip- 
tures for  myself?  Such  an  inquiry  may  be 
readily  answered  by  simply  putting  into  the 
hands  of  the  inquirer  another  commentary,  pro- 
ceeding from  a  person  of  a  different  school  of 
thought,  and  pointing  out  to  him  the  total  di- 
vergence between  them  in  their  whole  treatment 
of  the  word  of  God.  Which  of  them  shall  he 
follow  ?  Whichever  he  chooses,  he  can  be  him- 
self but  a  partisan,  a  man  whose  thoughts  and 
opinions  are  not  his  own,  incompetent  of  forming 
an  independent  interpretation,  and  who  cannot 
even  have  an  opinion  at  all  until  he  has  as- 
certained, directly  or  indirectly,  what  his  self- 
adopted  master  would  have  him  think.  If  any 
reader  is  content  to  occupy  such  a  position,  he 
may  as  well  lay  aside  this  or  any  other  aid  in 
the  acquisition  of  truth  ;  they  are  not  meant  for 
those  who  are  willing  to  think  only  the  thoughts 
of  others.  But  still  a  third  person  may  say : 
W^ith  such  a  fair  general  knowledge  of  Scrip- 


152    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

tiire  as  any  habitual  reader  of  it  may  be  sup- 
posed to  possess,  and  with  such  aid  as  one  may 
easily  obtain  from  an  occasional  reference  to 
one  or  two  good  commentaries,  why  can  I  not 
interpret  the  Bible  sufficiently  well  for  all  prac- 
tical purposes,  except,  possibly,  in  a  few  passages 
of  special  difficulty,  which  in  any  event  it  would 
be  wiser  for  me  to  let  alone  ?  Certainly,  a  large 
part  of  mankind  must  be  content  to  rely  on 
their  general  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,  with 
such  aid  as  they  can  find  in  one  or  two  good 
commentaries,  and,  on  the  whole,  they  are  thus 
able  to  explain  the  Scriptures  sufficiently  for 
the  common  purposes  of  life  with  good  and  use- 
ful effect.  But  this  is  not  to  be  an  exegete  :  let 
such  an  one  have  added  to  the  preparation  de- 
scribed a  knowledge  of  Greek,  and  every  one 
can  see  how  greatly  his  power  of  understanding 
the  New  Testament  will  be  increased.  For  ex- 
ample, it  is  impossible  for  one  to  learn  at  second 
hand  the  precise  use  and  meaning  of  the  word 
SiKaioavi^y]  as  used  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  ; 
and  without  a  clear  conception  of  the  exact  force 
of  that  pivotal  word,  it  is  equally  impossible  for 
him  fully  to  appreciate  the  masterly  argument 
of  that  epistle.  The  same  thing  may  be  said  in 
its  degree  of  the  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  of  the 
knowledge  of  history,  of  the  knowledge  of  geog- 
raphy, of  natural  science,  and  of  all  the  other 


PERSONAL  QUALIFICATIONS.  153 

matters  touched  upon  in  the  previous  pages. 
And  more  than  this :  exegesis  is  an  art  requiring 
special  study,  and  he  who  neglects  this  study  can 
never  know  whether  his  interpretation  of  a  par- 
ticular passage  is  based  either  upon  right  prin- 
ciples or  upon  a  right  application  of  them.  In 
general,  in  answer  to  all  these  attempts  to  reach 
a  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  of  God 
by  any  short  and  easy  method,  it  may  be  replied, 
that  while  there  is  nothing  of  which  an  accurate 
and  true  knowledge  can  be  acquired  without 
trouble,  it  is  least  of  all  possible  in  regard  to 
that  book  in  which  the  Infinite  and  the  finite 
meet  together,  and  the  Almighty  instructs  man 
concerning  His  will  and  His  truth.  Such  ac- 
curate knowledge  may  not  be  always  necessary 
for  practical  purposes  ;  but  without  it  one  who 
undertakes  to  expound  the  word  of  truth  is  al- 
ways walking  upon  uncertain  ground,  not  know- 
ing even  where  the  danger  lies,  and  is  liable 
when  he  least  thinks  it  to  be  found  in  error. 
And  this  trouble  must  be  taken  personally;  it 
will  not  suffice  to  rely  upon  others. 

This,  then,  is  the  first  essential  in  the  mental 
attitude  of  the  exegete  :  he  must  be  willing  to 
take  trouble,  first,  in  preparing  himself  for  his 
work  generally,  and  then  in  the  careful  examina- 
tion of  each  passage  which  he  undertakes  to  in- 
terpret.    What  an  amount  of   trashy  morality 


154    PBEPAEATION  FOB  INTERPRETING. 

has  been  thrust  upon  the  world  from  simply  not 
observing  that  the  meaning  of  iyKpaTeta  is  self- 
control  rather  than  temperance  in  the  ordinary 
modern  acceptation  of  that  word.  What  touch- 
ing force  is  added  to  the  threefold  questioning 
and  answer  of  St.  Peter  (John  xxi.  15-17)  by 
the  varying  use  of  the  words  ayairdoj  and  (^lAew, 
the  distinction  between  which  we  cannot  express 
in  English.  In  Luke  xxiii.  15,  how  much  clearer 
is  the  true  text,  "  No,  nor  yet  Herod,  for  he  sent 
Him  back  to  us,"  than  that  followed  in  the 
A.  v.,  "  For  I  sent  you  to  him."  These  are  but 
instances  of  a  thousand  passages,  many  of  them 
of  importance,  in  which  the  true  sense  yields 
only  to  careful  examination.  The  question  of 
our  Lord's  journeying  beyond  the  boundaries  of 
Palestine  turns  upon  the  authenticity  of  a  prep- 
osition in  Mark  vii.  31 ;  that  of  the  whole  length 
of  His  ministry  on  earth,  chiefly  upon  the  deter- 
mination of  what  feast  is  intended  in  John  v.  1. 


II.  A  Judicial  State  of  Mind. 

Besides  taking  trouble  to  ascertain  the  mean- 
ing of  his  text,  the  exegete  must  cultivate  that 
impartial,  well-balanced,  and  judicial  habit  of 
mind  which  can  alone  enable  him  to  come  to 
correct  conclusions  from  his  evidence  when  he 
has  it  before  him.    It  is  notorious  that  every  one 


PERSONAL  QUALIFICATIONS.  155 

who  goes  to  the  Scriptures  with  a  preconceived 
view  or  system  in  his  mind,  is  sure  to  find  that 
view  confirmed,  however  contradictory  these 
views  may  be  in  the  case  of  different  individuals. 
This  fairness  of  mind  is  not  an  easy  acquisition 
to  most  persons  ;  for  it  is  in  opposition  to  all 
prejudice  and  partisanship.  It  requires  a  study 
of  the  Scriptures  for  the  sole  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining what  they  have  to  say,  without  regard 
either  to  what  we  suppose  they  will  say,  or  to 
what  we  wish  that  they  might  say.  The  inser- 
tion of  the  "  if  "  in  the  English  translation  of 
Heb.  vi.  6,  and  x.  26,  if  it  be  understood,  as  is 
often  done,  to  imply  a  doubt  of  the  possibility 
of  the  condition  described,  may  serve  to  show 
how  extremely  difficult  it  is,  even  for  men  of 
most  honest  intentions,  to  avoid  being  warped  in 
their  interpretations  by  theological  views  already 
adopted.  Of  course  the  mind  of  an  intelligent 
man  cannot  be  a  mere  blank,  and  when  he  comes 
to  the  systematic  study  of  the  Divine  word  he 
w411  have  many  opinions  already  formed  ;  but  if 
he  keeps  before  himself  the  importance  of  the 
state  of  mind  now  insisted  upon,  and  tries  habit- 
ually and  honestly  to  learn  what  Scripture 
teaches  of  itself  and  not  what  he  can  make  it 
teach,  these  opinions,  in  so  far  as  they  may 
chance  to  be  erroneous,  will  gradually  he  cor- 
rected ;  and,  in  so  far  as  they  are  just,  will  find 


156    FEEPARATION  FOB  INTERPRETING. 

a  sure  foundation  on  whicli  to  rest.  Convictions, 
perhaps  deeply  cherished,  may  thus  come  to  be 
changed ;  but,  as  he  must  always  prefer  the 
Divine  will  to  his  own,  so  he  must  prefer  the 
fair  sense  of  the  Divine  word  to  his  own  opinion. 
Perfect  honesty  thus  becomes  an  essential  qual- 
ification of  the  interpreter,  and  he  can  never  al- 
low himself  to  "  handle  the  word  of  God  deceit- 
fully "  for  the  sake  of  removing  difficulties  or 
for  any  other  object.  What  is  really  God's 
word  must  be  true  ;  and  if  the  ark  seem  to  totter, 
it  cannot  be  stayed  by  the  hand  of  human  cas- 
uistry. It  is  not  honest  to  slur  over  difficulties, 
or  to  attempt  to  hide  them  in  a  mere  cloud  of 
words.  It  is  a  pitiable  exhibition  when  a  modern 
commentator  attempts  to  explain  the  discrep- 
ancies between  Ezra  ii.  and  Neh.  vii.,  in  the 
census  of  the  returning  captives,  by  saying,  that 
if  we  omit  in  Ezra  all  the  numbers  in  excess  of 
those  in  Nehemiah,  and  then  in  Nehemiah  all 
those  in  excess  of  Ezra,  and  add  the  residues, 
we  shall  have  identical  results  !  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  as  unworthy  to  reject  all  reasonable 
solution  of  difficulties,  lest  one  should  by  any 
means  fall  into  untrustworthy  conventionalities. 
The  danger  is  considerable  on  either  side ;  only 
by  a  judicial  fairness  can  both  be  avoided. 


PERSONAL  QUALIFICATIONS.  157 

III.  Common  Sense  and  Sagacity. 
"  Common  sense  "  is  the  art  of  applying  to 
our  own  opinions  or  actions  the  verdict  of  the 
common  intelligence  of  mankind.  As  it  is  one 
of  the  rarest,  so  it  is  one  of  the  most  important 
of  the  personal  qualifications  of  the  interpreter. 
The  judicial  habit  of  mind,  spoken  of  in  the  last 
section,  will  go  far  towards  securing  the  exercise 
of  common  sense  in  interpretation  ;  yet  some- 
thing more  is  needed.  One  may  be  fair  in  his 
judgment  without  sufficient  breadth  of  view  to 
take  in  all  the  elements  which  ought  to  affect  his 
decision.  "  Common  sense  "  or  "  sagacity  "  in 
interpretation  requires  a  ready  appreciation  of 
everything  which  ought  to  be  considered,  as  well 
as  a  fair  proportioning  of  influence  to  each  of 
them.  It  is  a  rare,  but  most  important,  qualifi- 
cation of  the  good  exegete,  and  its  attainment  is 
to  be  diligently  sought.  The  means  of  gaining 
it  are  the  same  as  those  by  which  a  sound  judg- 
ment is  cultivated  in  any  other  pursuit.  Men 
differ  in  the  degree  in  which  they  possess  it,  not 
so  much  by  reason  of  difference  in  the  original 
capacities  of  their  minds  as  in  the  habits  of 
thought  to  which  they  have  accustomed  them- 
selves, and  the  power  of  self-control  they  have 
trained  themselves  to  exercise.  Particularly  op- 
posed to  this  excellence  is  the  mistaken  effort  at 


158    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

originality.  True  originality,  here  as  in  natural 
science,  consists  not  in  the  finding  of  something 
absolutely  new,  but  in  drawing  attention  to  facts 
not  heretofore  observed  or  not  sufficiently  re- 
garded, and  combining  those  facts  naturally  and 
truly  but  in  combinations  heretofore  overlooked. 
For  such  originality  there  is  ample  room  in  the 
constant  advance  of  knowledge  in  every  depart- 
ment. It  was  a  truly  original  interpretation  of 
Matt.  xxi.  2,  when  a  traveler  in  Palestine  ob- 
served that  the  Mount  of  Olives  at  the  place  in 
question  is  furrowed  by  a  valley,  and  that,  while 
the  main  road  follows  round  its  head,  there  is  a 
short  cut  by  a  footpath  across,  with  the  remains 
of  a  village  at  the  junction  of  the  two  ways  on 
the  opposite  side.  When,  therefore,  our  Lord 
told  his  disciples,  "  Go  into  the  village  over 
against  you,"  He  directed  them  to  take  the  foot- 
path across  the  valley,  and  then  finding  the  ass, 
to  bring  it  along  the  main  road  to  meet  Him. 
But  it  is  an  utterly  false  and  mischievous  origi- 
nality which  either  takes  a  passage  out  of  its 
connection  and  fastens  upon  it  some  unheard-of 
meaning,  as  is  often  done  by  the  extreme  school 
of  typologists ;  or  which  presupposes  some  fan- 
ciful theory,  as  that  of  the  opposing  theology  of 
Peter  and  Paul,  and  then  forces  the  sense  of 
Scripture  to  its  support.  True  originality,  here 
as  elsewhere,  is  the  result  not  of  an  exuberant 


PERSONAL  QUALIFICATIONS.  159 

fancy,  but  of  hard  and  intelligent  work,  and  of 
this  originality  common  sense  must  be  the  test. 
That  which  is  original  in  the  right  sense  in  in- 
terpretation, as  everywhere,  must  be,  like  the 
egg  of  Columbus,  something  which,  once  pointed 
out,  can  be  seen  and  approved  by  every  man 
possessed  of  the  necessary  data  for  forming  an 
opinion.  The  sagacity  by  which  a  great  general 
wins  a  battle  is  not  usually  displayed  in  new 
devices,  but  in  so  grasping  the  whole  circum- 
stances of  the  situation,  and  so  disposing  his 
forces  in  view  of  them,  that,  when  the  struggle  is 
over,  every  one  can  see  that  the  battle  must  have 
been  won.  Correspondingly,  the  difficulties  of 
the  exegete  are  to  be  overcome,  not  so  much  by 
an  exercise  of  ingenuity,  as  by  so  bringing  cir- 
cumstances and  facts  and  context  to  bear  upon 
the  exact  language  of  the  text  that  the  difficulty, 
as  it  were,  resolves  itself.  This  is  the  height  of 
exegetical  sagacity,  and  is  the  outcome  of  a  full 
preparation  for  the  work,  of  painstaking  labor, 
and  of  a  judicial  attitude  of  mind  under  the 
guidance  of  common  sense. 

IV.  Reverence. 
Finally,  with  all  these  qualifications,  it  is  nec- 
essary that  the  interpreter  should  approach  his 
work  and  should  carry  it  on  at  every  stage  with 
reverence.     Of  course  this  is  a  necessary  result 


160    PBEPABATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

from  the  nature  of  the  material,  the  inspired 
word  of  God,  on  which  the  exegete  is  expected 
to  work ;  but  the  proposition  needs  to  be  con- 
sidered, both  to  show  its  use,  and  to  guard 
against  its  abuse.  The  character  of  the  Bible, 
as  the  revelation  of  God,  requires  that  its  inter- 
pretation should  be  undertaken  with  a  distinct 
consciousness  and  continual  recollection  of  this 
fact ;  in  other  words,  that  we  here  stand  in  the 
presence  of  the  teachings  of  the  Infinite.  This 
not  only  gives  seriousness  and  importance  to  the 
work,  but  also  furnishes  the  clue  to  the  solution 
of  some  otherwise  insoluble  difficulties.  Refer- 
ence must  be  again  made  to  the  Introduction  to 
show  how  essentially  this  fact  modifies  the  whole 
of  Scripture.  But,  aside  from  this,  we  find  every- 
where that  reverence  is  one  of  the  most  positive 
requirements  of  the  Supreme  Being,  and,  there- 
fore, without  this  we  are  not  likely  to  interpret 
His  word  acceptably  to  Him.  When  the  prophet 
was  sent  to  declare  an  important  message  from 
on  high,  he  saw  in  vision  the  Almighty  seated 
upon  a  throne  with  the  seraphim  standing  be- 
fore Him.  They  had  each  six  wings,  but  used 
two  of  them  to  veil  their  faces  and  two  to  veil 
their  feet  in  exj)ression  of  their  reverence,  leav- 
ing only  one  third  of  their  powers  to  be  em- 
ployed in  the  active  execution  of  their  Maker's 
commands  (Isa.  vi.  1,  2).     For  us  it  may  not  be 


PERSONAL  QUALIFICATIONS.  161 

necessary  to  hold  in  abeyance  anything  of  the 
power  given  ;  but  it  is  necessary  that  all  should 
be  employed  with  the  same  sense  of  the  profound 
holiness  and  truth  and  love  of  Him  whose  word 
we  seek  to  interpret.  While  thus  saved  from 
many  a  false  interpretation,  we  shall  be  led  to 
look  for  and  to  find  a  depth  and  fullness  of 
meaning  which  might  otherwise  be  overlooked. 

On  the  other  hand,  nothing  can  be  more  fool- 
ish than  to  attempt  to  find  deep  mysteries  in  the 
simplest  historical  events  and  profound  types  in 
the  necessary  accessories  of  the  Divine  com- 
mands. Such  trifling  with  the  Divine  word, 
common  enough  from  the  days  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria  to  our  own,  is  not  reverential,  but 
irrational ;  and  the  Divine  requirement  is  ever 
that  our  service  must  be  a  reasonable  service. 
In  the  work  of  the  interpreter,  dogmatism  often 
seeks  to  screen  itself  under  the  cloak  of  rever- 
ence. Centuries  ago  the  attempt  to  determine 
the  true  character  of  the  New  Testament  dialect 
was  stoutly  resisted  as  irreverent ;  a  generation 
ago  the  same  ground  was  taken  —  and  is  not  yet 
wholly  given  up  —  against  every  effort  to  restore 
as  far  as  possible  the  original  words  of  Holy 
Writ  by  the  application  of  textual  criticism.  In 
the  more  especial  department  of  exegesis,  his- 
tory shows  many  a  shallow  interpreter  seeking 
to  hide  his  ignorance  of  the  real  meaning  of  the 


162    PREPARATION  FOR  INTERPRETING. 

sacred  record  under  the  mask  of  reverence,  while 
on  the  other  hand,  examples  are  not  wanting  of 
a  true  reverence  denounced  as  superstition.  The 
difficulty  presses  with  peculiar  force  in  the  re- 
o^ion  where  exe^^esis  blends  with  doctrinal  theol- 
ogy.  Here  true  reverence  can  never  be  content 
that  a  doctrine  should  rest  upon  a  false  support ; 
yet,  if  a  conventional  proof  text  is  shown  by  a 
careful  exegesis  to  have  no  relation  to  the  doc- 
trine in  question,  a  cry  is  sure  to  be  raised  that 
the  doctrine  itself  is  attacked  and  must  be  de- 
fended from  the  rash  hands  irreverently  laid 
upon  it.  Keverence  for  a  merely  human  past  is 
often  mistaken  for  reverence  for  God's  word, 
and  a  change  in  an  interpretation,  necessitated 
by  the  advance  in  philology  and  in  all  know- 
ledge, is  too  apt  to  be  regarded  as  a  proposal  to 
change  the  Scripture  itself. 

Nevertheless,  true  reverence  must  show  itself 
in  the  honest  and  manly  effort  to  ascertain  what 
is  the  meaning  which  the  Holy  Spirit  meant 
to  convey  through  the  language  of  the  Scripture 
writer.  Whoever  does  this,  may  be  assured  if 
he  goes  on,  under  an  abiding  sense  of  the  great 
realities  with  which  he  has  to  do,  that  his  effort 
is  well  pleasing  to  the  Majesty  on  high,  and,  in 
so  far  as  it  is  true  to  its  purpose,  will  endure  to 
His  glory. 


PART  II. 

THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 


CHAPTER  XL 

PRELIMINARY. 

We  have  now  to  consider  the  actual  work  of 
the  interpreter  in  ascertaining  the  meaning  of 
the  Bible.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that,  prac- 
tically, his  preparation  and  his  work  can  be 
separated  as  they  have  been  in  the  discussion 
of  them.  Life  does  not  suffice  for  the  attain- 
ment of  a  theoretically  perfect  preparation  ;  the 
exegete  must  enter  upon  his  work  with  such 
preparation  as  he  has  been  able  to  attain,  and 
his  difficulties  will  soon  suggest  the  importance 
of  improving  to  the  utmost  his  qualifications  as 
he  has  opportunity.  He  should  beware  of  so 
committing  himself  to  his  interpretations  that 
their  modification  shall  become  difficult  when,  in 
the  light  of  a  fuller  preparation,  he  may  be  able 
to  see  their  erroneousness.  He  should  rather 
begin  the  practice  of   exegesis  tentatively,   re- 


164  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

cording  his  results  with  the  reasons  for  them  as 
a  matter  of  self-education,  that  from  these  es- 
says, when  they  happen  to  prove  unsuccessful, 
he  may  afterwards  see  the  errors  he  is  to  avoid 
and  the  means  by  which  he  was  led  to  commit 
them  ;  and  when,  in  the  light  of  farther  know- 
ledge and  skill  in  practice,  they  prove  success- 
ful, they  may  become  an  encouragement  and 
help  to  farther  progress.  When  he  shall  find, 
after  some  years  of  growing  preparation,  that  his 
general  system  of  interpretation  still  commends 
itself  to  his  own  mind,  and  that  in  particular 
eases,  in  which  no  new  facts  have  come  to  his 
attention,  his  views  are  still  satisfactory,  he  may 
fairly  conclude  that  he  has  entered  upon  the 
right  road,  and  that  henceforth  his  skill  in  in- 
terpretation will  be  proportioned  to  his  practice 
and  his  information  and  to  his  care  in  bringing 
these  to  bear  upon  the  subject  before  him. 

In  the  following  chapters  the  same  general 
order  will  be  observed  as  in  those  which  have 
gone  before,  i.  e.,  the  principle  will  be,  to  begin 
with  the  general  and  advance  to  the  special. 
This  is  the  reverse  of  the  course  usually  pursued 
in  works  on  hermeneutics,  and  is  made  possible 
by  having  already  considered  the  required  prepa- 
ration of  the  exegete.  If  one  were  to  undertake 
the  interpretation  of  a  particular  passage  with- 
out any  knowledge  of  the  subject,  it  would  be 


PRELIMINARY.  165 

necessary  for  him  to  build  up  a  knowledge  piece- 
meal, beginning  of  course  with  the  most  elemen- 
tary details ;  he  would  be  obliged  first  to  deter- 
mine the  text,  and  then  to  make  himself  familiar 
with  the  meaning  of  the  words  and  the  structure 
of  the  language,  and  thence  go  on  step  by  step 
to  wider  considerations  of  context,  etc.  But  the 
interpreter  who  comes  to  his  work  with  full 
preparation  is  in  a  different  position,  and  is 
able  to  take  it  up  in  whatever  may  be  really  the 
best  way.  In  deciding  upon  what  is  that  best 
way,  regard  must  be  had  to  the  universal  law  of 
nature  which  puts  the  general  before  the  special, 
and  marks  all  progress  as  a  course  of  successive 
specializations.  The  tyro  in  natural  history  must 
first  study  his  many  individual  specimens  and 
group  them  successively  into  species,  genera, 
families,  etc.,  following  the  ascending  order,  and 
this  is  of  necessity  the  general  rule  for  the  ac- 
quisition of  knowledge ;  but  the  knowledge  hav- 
ing once  been  acquired  and  thoroughly  incorpo- 
rated into  the  treasures  of  the  mind,  the  reverse 
order  is  to  be  followed,  often  more  or  less  un- 
consciously. The  well  instructed  naturalist,  on 
taking  in  hand  a  new  object,  observes  at  a  glance 
to  which  kingdom  of  nature  it  belongs,  and  to 
which  order  and  family,  and  afterwards  more 
carefully  examines  its  generic  and  specific  char- 
acteristics, following  the  historic  order.     In  the 


166  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

same  way  the  cheaiist  must  in  his  studies  first 
acquire  a  knowledge  of  the  properties  of  bodies; 
but  when    he   is   prepared  for  an   analysis,   he 
begins  his  work  by  observing  certain  character- 
istic reactions  which  determine  to  which  of  sev- 
eral groups  of  substances  the  body  in  question 
belongs,  and  then  identifies  it  successively  as  a 
member  of  smaller  and  smaller  groups  until  he 
brings  it  down  at  last  to  its  own  characteristic 
reactions.     The   same    is   true   of    every   other 
branch  of  natural  study ;  and  a  like  course  is  to 
be  followed  in  exegesis  :  first,  acquire  the  neces- 
sary knowledge  by  building  up  from  details,  and 
then    in  applying  that  knowledge,   reverse   the 
order,  and  proceed  from  the  more  general  to  the 
more  special.     This  more  general  knowledge,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  student  of  natural  history,  will 
very  often  be  unconsciously  applied ;    at  wdiat- 
ever  stage,  however,  the  process  is  consciously 
taken  up,  the  student  must  begin  with  the  more 
general  of  the  considerations  which  are  to  be 
taken  into  account.     As  in  reading  a  letter  in 
an  obscure  handwriting,  we  first  aim  to  obtain  a 
knowledge  of  the  general  drift,  and  then  of  the 
particular  sentence  as  an  aid  in  determining  a 
difficult  word  ;  so  in  exegesis,  we  ascertain  the 
general  purpose  of  the  writer,  the  scope  of  the 
context,   the  grammatical  structure,   before   we 
determine  the  exact  shade  of  meaning  of  a  par- 
ticular word. 


PRELIMINARY.  167 

It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  there  is  a  certain 
danger  in  this  method  against  which  the  student 
requires  to  be  absolutely  on  his  guard.  He 
must  beware  of  making  up  his  mind  before- 
hand, from  general  considerations,  what  the  text 
ought  to  say.  In  this  respect,  as  in  every  other, 
he  must  bring  to  his  interpretation  an  unpreju- 
diced mind,  seeking  only  to  know  what  the  text 
does  say,  and  not  what  he  would  wish  it  to  say. 
The  illustrations  which  will  be  given  in  the 
following  chapters  will  sufficiently  show  how 
the  more  general  should  be  brought  to  bear 
upon  the  more  special.  It  is  never  to  determine 
the  meaning  beforehand,  but  only  to  enable  us 
rightly  to  decide  between  different  interj^reta- 
tions  which  the  words  alone  might  possibly  bear  ; 
to  ascertain  the  circumstances  under  which  they 
were  written  ;  the  general  purpose  of  the  writ- 
er's mind  ;  and,  in  a  word,  to  put  ourselves  as 
much  as  possible  in  the  writer's  position  and  un- 
derstand his  words  as  he  intended  to  use  them. 

This  danger,  however,  is  believed  to  be  far 
less  than  that  attending  the  opposite  course, 
where  the  tendency,  as  shown  by  experience  as 
well  as  by  theory,  is  to  exaggerate  the  impor- 
tance of  minutiae,  and,  between  different  possible 
meanings,  to  adopt  that  which  seems  in  the  de- 
tail as  perhaps  slightly  the  more  probable,  with 
such  tenacity  as  to  render  the  interpreter  blind 
to  more  important  considerations. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE     APPLICATION     OF     THE     GENEKAL     KNOW- 
LEDGE  OF   THE   SCRIPTURES. 

Here,  as  throughout  this  part  of  the  work, 
the  principles  to  be  observed  can  best  be  con- 
veyed by  means  of  examples.  Let  us  suppose 
the  exegete  proceeding  to  interpret  some  point 
on  which  a  difference  of  opinion  has  existed,  and 
on  which  he  wishes  to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory 
conclusion,  based  on  sufficient  evidence.  We 
are  to  consider  here  only  examples  which  de- 
pend for  their  solution  upon  a  general  know- 
ledge of  the  Scriptures. 

Let  us  take,  as  a  first  illustration,  the  number 
of  the  Israelites  at  their  exodus  from  Egypt. 
This  is  stated  in  Ex.  xii.  37  at  600,000  men, 
giving,  according  to  the  ordinary  proportion, 
somewhere  about  2,500,000  as  the  whole  num- 
ber of  the  Israelites  at  this  time.  But  this  num- 
ber involves  certain  obvious  difficulties.  The 
total  number  of  Jacob's  family  who  went  down 
into  Egypt  215  years  before  is  given  in  Gen. 
xlvi.  27  and  Ex.  i.  5  as  seventy,  and  a  natural  in- 
crease in  that  time  from  the  one  number  to  the 


APPLICATION  OF  KNOWLEDGE.        1G9 

other  is  j^lainly  impossible.    Further,  the  nature 
of  the  country  in  which  the  ''  wanderings  of  the 
wilderness  "  occurred,  plainly  made  the  support 
of  such  a  vast  host  for  forty  years  impracticable 
by  any  natural  means.     On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
well  known  that  simple  statements  of  numbers 
are  especially  exposed  to  the  errors  of  the  scribes 
in  the  repeated  copying  of  MSS.,  and  that  sev- 
eral such  errors  do  actually  occur.     In  view  of 
these  facts  some  critics  have   been  disposed  to 
reduce  the  number  of  men  to  60,000  or  even  to 
6,000.     Whether  such  a  reduction  is  allowable, 
or  even  possible,  and  also  whether  there  is  any 
real  ground  for  susj^ecting  error,  must   be  deter- 
mined from  a  general  knowledge   of  the  whole 
history  to  which  this  particular  statement  be- 
longs.   In  the  first  place,  the  number  itself  is  so 
repeatedly  restated  and  checked  in  a  variety  of 
ways   that    it  is  impossible   there  should  have 
been  any  merely  accidental  error.    Within  about 
a  year  from  this  time  a  military  census  was  taken 
of  the  people  by  their  tribes,  and  in  Num.  i.  the 
result  is  given  for  each  tribe  separately  (verses 
20-43),  as  well  as  the  sum  total  (verse  46).    In 
the  following  chapter  an  account  is  given  of  the 
separation  of  the  whole  host  into  four  marching 
divisions,  in  which  the  numljer  of  each  tribe  is 
again  stated,  and  also  the  whole  number  of  each 
division  (ii.  1-24),  and  then  again  the  sum  total 


170  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

of  the  whole  (verse  32).  Thirty-eight  years  later 
a  similar  census  was  again  taken,  and  is  recorded 
again  for  each  tribe  separately,  and  also  the  sum 
total  (Num.  XX vi.  5-51).  There  are,  besides,  a 
great  many  other  checks  upon  the  number,  as  in 
the  census  of  the  Levites,  the  record  of  the  num- 
bers who  fell  under  the  various  judgments,  etc. 
It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  number,  if  not 
correct,  must  have  been  intentionally  and  sys- 
tematically changed.  The  next  inquiry  must  be 
in  regard  to  the  number  who  went  down  into 
Egypt.  This  we  find  variously  stated ;  in  Gen. 
xlvi.  26  as  sixty-six,  in  the  following  verse  as 
seventy,  in  Acts  vii.  14  (from  the  Septuagint)  as 
seventy-five ;  on  examining  the  list  of  names  in 
Gen.  xlvi.  8-25,  it  is  seen  at  once  that  the  num- 
ber is  merely  conventional,  including  some  who 
were  not  born  at  the  time  referred  to,  and  that 
it  is  in  fact  a  list  of  the  heads  of  the  families  of 
Egypt,  consisting,  indeed,  chiefly  of  those  who 
actually  went  down  at  that  time,  but  also  includ- 
ing others  in  the  national  annals  who  were  con- 
sidered as  entitled  to  like  honor.  This  miaht 
have  been  stated  at  the  pleasure  of  the  writer  at 
either  of  the  figures  mentioned,  or  at  still  some 
other  sum  not  greatly  divergent.  It  is  next  ob- 
served that  no  names  of  wives  are  mentioned, 
and  hence,  in  a  question  of  increase  of  popu- 
lation, the  original   seventy   is   to   be   at   once 


APPLICATION  OF  KNOWLEDGE.         171 

doubled.  Again,  we  read  in  Gen.  xiv.  14,  that 
Abraham  had  in  his  household  318  servants  able 
to  go  forth  to  war,  and  that,  according  to  the 
Divine  command  to  him  and  to  his  posterity,  all 
these  were  circumcised  (Gen.  xvii.  12-14,  27). 
The  whole  narrative  shows  that  the  family  riches 
did  not  diminish  in  passing  to  Isaac  and  to  Ja- 
cob ;  and  all  their  male  servants  must  have  been 
brought  into  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  When 
Jacob  and  his  sons  went  down  to  Egypt,  they 
took  with  them  all  their  possessions,  including 
their  flocks  and  herds  (Gen.  xlvi.  5,  6  ;  xlvii.  1), 
and  it  is  certain  that  they  must  have  taken  their 
servants  with  them,  both  because  of  the  need  of 
them  in  the  care  of  their  flocks,  and  because  they 
could  not  have  left  them  behind  unprovided  for 
in  the  famine-stricken  land.  They  were  all  alike 
a  foreign  people  to  the  Egyptians,  and  must  have 
been  all  classed  together  when  the  time  of  op- 
pression came  on,  and,  having  the  common  bond 
of  circumcision,  it  is  evident  that  they  would 
liave  been  regarded  as  Israelites  by  the  Israel- 
ites themselves  as  well  as  by  the  Egyptians,  and 
have  been  accounted  to  the  various  tribes  with 
which  they  were  connected.  It  is  thus  found 
that  the  number  at  the  start  was  several  hun- 
dred instead  of  merely  seventy,  and  the  increase 
presents  no  very  remarkable  phenomenon. 

Next  in  regard  to  their  long  march  in  the 


172  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

wilderness  :  had  the  number  been  quite  small  this 
would  have  been  not  only  possible  but  altogether 
natural,  as  we  find  that  corresponding  numbers 
of  nomadic  tribes  always  have  and  do  still  suc- 
ceed in  finding  a  support  in  the  same  region. 
But  the  whole  story  of  the  Exodus,  and  espe- 
cially the  feeding  of  the  people,  is  represented  as 
impossible  by  natural  means,  and,  therefore,  as 
miraculous.  This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the 
credibility  of  the  supernatural ;  we  must  accept 
this  in  any  reasonable  system  of  Scripture  inter- 
pretation. The  whole  story  is  thus  self-consist- 
ent. The  numbers  would  not  have  been  possible 
without  the  miracles ;  the  miracles  would  not 
have  been  required  without  the  numbers. 

Still  further :  the  conquest  of  Canaan  is  rep- 
resented as  that  of  a  number  of  large,  powerful, 
and  warlike  tribes,  in  possession  of  fortified 
cities,  and  to  a  considerable  extent  acting  in 
alliance  with  one  another.  The  conquest,  as  it 
was,  was  only  accomplished  by  effective  assist- 
ance from  on  high  ;  but  to  a  much  smaller  num- 
ber it  would  have  been  absolutely  impossible 
without  an  extent  of  miraculous  interposition  of 
which  there  is  no  record.  On  the  whole,  there- 
fore, it  must  be  concluded  that  while  the  number 
cannot  be  an  accidental  error,  it  has  no  improb- 
ability in  itself,  and  that  some  such  number  is 
actually  required  by  the  whole  history  taken  to- 
gether. 


APPLICATION  OF  KNOWLEDGE.         173 

Let  us^now  take  an  example  of  a  different 
kind,  which  has  already  been  spoken  of  in  an- 
other connection.  It  is  recorded  in  Mark  ii. 
23-28,  that  onr  Lord  was  accused  by  the  Phar- 
isees of  a  breach  of  the  Sabbath  because  He  al- 
lowed His  disciples  on  that  day  to  pluck  and  eat 
the  ears  of  grain  as  they  passed  through  the 
field.  He  defended  his  course  by  the  example 
of  David,  who  "  went  into  the  house  of  God  in 
the  days  of  Abiathar,  the  high  priest,  and  did 
eat  the  shewbread,  which  is  not  lawful  to  eat 
but  for  the  priests,  and  gave  also  to  them  which 
were  with  him."  In  this  passage  there  is  needed 
a  general  knowledge  of  Scripture,  first,  to  under- 
stand accurately  the  ground  of  the  accusation, 
then,  to  remove  a  difficulty,  and;  finally,  to  ap- 
preciate the  peculiar  appropriateness  and  force 
of  the  reply. 

For  the  first,  there  was  no  harm  in  the  act  of 
the  disciples  itself,  independently  of  the  day  on 
which  it  was  done.  The  law  was  explicit: 
"  When  thou  comest  into  the  standing  corn  of 
thy  neighbor,  then  thou  mayest  pluck  the  ears 
with  thine  hand  ;  but  thou  shalt  not  move  a 
sickle  unto  thy  neighbor's  standing  corn  "  (Deut. 
xxiii.  25).  The  offense  charged  was  only  an 
offense  against  the  sanctity  of  the  day,  and  a 
careful  examination  of  the  whole  Mosaic  legisla- 
tion shows  that  no  precept  of  the  Divine  law 


174  THE  ABT  OF  INTERrRETING. 

itself  was  violated,  but  only  the  current  Phari- 
saical interpretation  of  it.  For  the  defense  of 
the  disciples  it  was  only  necessary  to  show  that 
this  interpretation  was  unauthorized.  Our  Lord, 
however,  wished  to  go  farther  than  this,  and  to 
show  that,  even  in  the  case  of  an  exact  and  defi- 
nite precept,  technicalities  must  give  way  to  ne- 
cessity, and  that  the  observance  of  a  command- 
ment in  detail  must  yield  to  the  fulfillment  of 
the  broader  purj^oses  for  which  the  law  was 
given.  He  therefore  selected  an  instance  in 
which  the  precept  was  not  only  definite  and  ex- 
press, but  one  in  which  the  observance  might 
seem  a  necessary  part  of  the  whole  symbolism 
of  the  Old  Testament  ritual.  The  shewbread 
was  undoubtedly  offered  as  a  part  of  the  symbol 
of  the  consecration  to  God  of  all  the  gifts  of  the 
people.  It  was  "  most  holy,"  and  to  be  eaten 
by  the  priests  alone  as  His  representatives,  in 
token  of  its  acceptance  and  of  His  communion 
with  His  people  (Lev.  xxiv.  9).  Nevertheless, 
no  Jew  of  the  time  of  Christ  would  have  dared 
to  condemn  either  David  or  Ahimelech  for  their 
violation  of  the  law  under  the  circumstances. 
Hence  the  argument  against  them  was  made 
conclusive  by  a  simple  appeal  to  this  precedent. 
The  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  name  of  the 
high  priest  has  already  been  treated.^ 
1  Vide  p.  78. 


APPLICATION  OF  KNOWLEDGE.        175 

But  there  was  a  peculiar  appropriateness  in 
our  Lord's  answer  which  is  apt  to  escape  the 
casual  reader.  The  shewbread  was  required  by 
the  law  (Lev.  xxiv.  8)  to  be  renewed  every  Sab- 
bath. Now  it  appears  from  the  narrative  (1  Sam. 
xxi.  6)  that  when  David  came  to  the  high  priest 
this  bread  had  just  been  taken  away  to  make 
room  for  the  hot  bread  that  day  put  in  its  place. 
This  act  of  justifiable  violation  of  the  letter  of 
the  law  was,  therefore,  also  on  the  Sabbath,  and 
not  only  so,  but  the  flight  of  David  and  his  com- 
panions, by  a  far  longer  way  than  "  a  Sabbath 
day's  journey,"  was  also  on  that  day.  If  the 
Pharisees  chose  to  bear  all  these  facts  in  mind, 
our  Lord's  reply  to  them  must  have  been  in- 
deed unanswerable. 

One  other  brief  illustration  may  be  allowed. 
In  1  Cor.  X.  4,  Paul  says  that  the  Israelites 
"drank  of  that  spiritual  Rock  that  followed 
them  ;  and  that  Rock  was  Christ."  He  is  arou- 
ing  the  insufficiency  of  merely  external  privi- 
leges to  make  man  acceptable  to  God  or  secure 
his  salvation.  He  proves  this  by  the  example  of 
the  Israelites  of  old.  An  obvious  reply  might 
be  made  by  urging  the  distinction  in  the  privi- 
leges and  the  efficacy  of  the  old  and  the  new 
covenants.  The  Apostle  meets  this  by  showing 
that  of  old,  as  now,  the  one  Source  of  spiritual 
blessing  was  the  same,  —  Christ.     Is  this  true  ? 


176  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

It  certainly  is  ;  but  to  establish  its  truth  nothing 
less  will  suffice  than  to  take  in  the  whole  com- 
pass of  Scripture  teaching.  It  is  necessary  to 
show  that  God  Himself,  in  His  own  essence,  is 
unapproachable,  and  has  never  been  seen  of 
man ;  that  He  is,  and  can  be,  manifested  only 
through  a  Mediator ;  that  there  is  but  one  Me- 
diator, even  Christ,  between  God  and  man ;  and 
hence  that  He  who  manifested  Himself  to,  and 
sustained,  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness  is  nec- 
essarily one  with  Him  to  whom  the  Christian 
looks  for  salvation. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

KNOWLEDGE   OF  THE  PAKTICULAR   BOOK. 

Besides  a  general  knowledge  of  the  Bible  as 
a  whole,  the  interpreter  needs  a  special  know- 
ledge of  the  particular  book  with  which  he  is  to 
be  immediately  concerned.  The  bearing  of  this 
knowledge  upon  his  interpretation  varies  consid- 
erably with  the  nature  of  the  book,  and  is  some- 
times of  more,  sometimes  of  less,  importance  ; 
but  is  always  an  element  of  far  too  great  weight 
to  be  neglected,  and  is  in  some  cases  really  in- 
valuable. In  the  historical  books  of  Samuel, 
Kings,  and  Chronicles  it  might  seem  sufficient 
to  be  familiar  with  the  general  character  of  the 
histories  of  the  time  ;  but  it  will  be  found  nec- 
essary for  the  proper  understa^ling  of  Chroni- 
cles to  consider,  also,  the  circumstances  and  needs 
of  the  people  at  the  time  of  the  return  from  the 
captivity,  for  only  thus  can  its  insertions  and 
omissions,  as  compared  with  the  other  books,  be 
explained.  In  the  same  way  in  the  case  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels;  these  Gospels  have  certain 
common  characteristics  which  may  be  considered 
together,    and    which    ought    to    be   thoroughly 


178  THE  ART  OF  INTERPBETING. 

studied  ;  but  one  may  go  far  astray,  not  only  in 
chronological  arrangement,  but  also  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  particular  passages,  unless  he  take 
into  account  the  peculiarities  of  each  of  the 
Evangelists,  recognizing,  e.  g.,  Matthew's  ten- 
dency to  group  like  things  together,  such  as  the 
parables  of  our  Lord,  miracles,  discourses ;  and 
St.  Luke's  care  to  narrate  each  incident  in  con- 
nection with  the  circumstances  under  which  it 
occurred. 

Let  us  select,  for  illustration,  one  book  from 
the  Old  and  one  from  the  New  Testament.  Gen- 
esis is  the  most  ancient  of  the  former,  and  would 
present  serious  difficulties  if  looked  u^Don  as  an 
original  continuous  history.  It  is,  on  the  con- 
trary, a  compilation  from  more  ancient  docu- 
ments, and  however  these  have  sometimes  been 
woven  together  by  the  compiler,  they  generally 
show  distinct  marks  of  their  original  indepen- 
dence, especially  in  the  more  ancient  parts.  If, 
now,  one  take  up  the  first  two  chapters,  he  will 
find  in  each  of  f\iem  an  account  of  the  creation, 
but  from  quite  different  points  of  view.  In  the 
first  (ending  with  ii.  3),  there  is  the  story  of  the 
material  and  the  animal  creation,  closing  with 
that  of  man  ;  but  the  main  object  is  evidently  to 
present  a  general  view  of  the  cosmogony  and  to 
assert  the  ultimate  origin  of  all  things  from 
God.     The  object  of  the  second,  while  it  glances 


THE  PARTICULAR  BOOK.  179 

at  the  creation  in  general,  is  plainly  to  describe 
the  origin  and  status  of  MAif.  The  two  accounts, 
if  considered  as  originally  independent  histories 
of  the  creation,  looked  at  from  different  points 
of  view,  are  perfectly  consistent  and  harmonious ; 
but  regarded,  as  they  once  were,  as  parts  of  a 
continuous  narrative,  would  present  very  strange 
phenomena.  Along  with  these  plain  marks  of 
original  separation  there  is  in  each  a  uniform 
Divine  name  differing  from  that  in  the  other ; 
in  the  first  we  have  D^nbs  some  thirty  times ; 
in  the  second  Q>nbs  r^^T^"'  eleven  times.  It  is 
unnecessary  to  speak  of  other  evidences  of  sepa- 
rate documents  in  this  book ;  some  parts  of  it 
must  have  been  originally  written  as  early  as  or 
even  earlier  than  the  time  of  Abraham,  when 
"the  cities  of  the  plain  "were  yet  standing; 
others  must  have  been  written  as  late  as  the 
time  of  Jacob,  and  some  isolated  explanatory 
clauses  inserted  at  a  later  date  than  the  time  of 
Moses.  Some  chapters  must  have  been  written 
in  the  locality  of  Egypt,  others  in  the  patri- 
archal times  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  The  book 
can  only  be  properly  understood  by  keeping 
these  facts  constantly  in  view. 

Turning  now  to  the  New  Testament,  almost 
any  of  the  books^will  serve  equally  well  for  illus- 
tration. Let  us  select  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
To  interpret  rightly  this  most  important  exposi- 


180  THE  ABT  OF  INTEBPEETING. 

tion  of  the  Cliristian  faith  it  is  necessary,  first  of 
all,  to  understand  thoroughly  the  character,  life, 
and  spiritual  experience  of  the  great  Apostle  to 
the  Gentiles  up  to  the  time  when  it  was  written ; 
for  these  enter  very  largely  into  the  form  in 
which  the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity 
are  here  presented.  It  is  also  desirable  to  know 
as  much  as  may  be  of  the  disciples  at  Rome, 
their  doctrinal  needs  and  their  experiences,  as 
may  be  learned  from  a  careful  study  of  every 
mention  of  the  names  of  those  saluted  in  the  last 
chapter  of  the  epistle.  Finally,  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  have  a  full  grasp  of  the  great  ob- 
jects had  in  view,  and  of  the  general  plan  of  the 
epistle,  which  can  only  be  obtained  by  a  repeated 
careful  reading  over  of  the  whole  consecutively. 
If  the  details  of  this  epistle  had  been  generally 
studied  with  this  kind  of  preparation,  it  is  safe 
to  say  that  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  con- 
troversies which  have  centred  in  its  statements, 
if  they  had  arisen  at  all,  could  never  have  sought 
support  in  its  language.  Many  a  bitter  dispute 
about  the  doctrine  of  election  would  have  van- 
ished by  attending  to  the  general  scope  of  the 
epistle  and  the  connection  of  the  passages,  used 
in  this  controversy,  with  the  main  argument  of 
the  Apostle.  The  long  arguments  on  the  rela- 
tive importance  of  faith  and  works  would  have 
found  here  no  standing  ground,  had  the  scheme 


THE  PARTICULAR  BOOK.  181 

of  salvation,  as  set  forth  in  its  totality,  been  prop- 
erly apprehended.  The  same  thing  may  be  said 
of  the  historic  misunderstandings  of  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Christian  to  the  moral  law,  and  of 
many  other  things  where  the  most  opposite  views 
have  sought  support  in  the  strong  and  earnest 
language  of  St.  Paul. 

What  is  true  of  this  epistle  is  true  also  in  its 
degree  of  all  the  others.  Many  parts  of  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews  become  almost  enigmas  as 
soon  as  they  are  considered  apart  from  the  argu- 
ment and  design  of  the  whole.  While  this  fact 
is  more  apparent  and  more  striking  in  what  are 
called  the  argumentative  epistles,  it  will  not  bear 
to  be  neglected  in  regard  to  those  which  are 
called  practical.  The  interpretation  of  the  Epis- 
tle of  James  particularly  has  grievously  suffered 
from  not  approaching  it  with  a  broad  and  well 
matured  view  of  its  general  purpose. 

Even  in  the  historical  books  in  which,  from 
their  character,  a  general  thought  has  less  op- 
portunity for  development,  the  same  principle, 
although  it  is  not  to  be  pressed  beyond  bounds, 
lies  at  the  root  of  all  satisfactory  interpretation. 
The  marked  difference  in  tone  and  character 
between  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  is  a  necessary  result  of  the  declared 
purpose  of  the  former  (John  xx.  31),  and,  when 
duly  considered,  brings  them  all  into  harmonious 
relations  with  each  other. 


182  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

This,  then,  may  be  laid  down  confidently  as  the 
most  important  guide  to  the  interpreter  in  his 
work :  after  acquiring  a  good  general  knowledge 
of  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  let  him  next  obtain  the 
most  thorough  knowledge  possible  of  the  par- 
ticular book  which  is  to  be  the  immediate  sub- 
ject of  interpretation. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE   USE   OF   GEOGRAPHY. 

The  use  of  geographical  knowledge  in  the 
work  of  interpretation  depends  greatly  upon  the 
character  of  the  book  which  is  studied.  In  such 
a  book  as  Genesis,  which  contains  the  account  of 
the  dispersion  of  mankind  and  the  journeyings 
of  the  patriarchs,  or  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
giving  the  story  of  the  spread  of  the  gospel  in 
various  regions  and  the  missionary  travels  of 
the  great  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  it  is  obviously 
of  the  first  importance,  and  very  many  passages 
can  be  rightly  understood  only  by  its  aid ;  while 
in  the  books  of  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes,  or  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  it  is  of  secondary  value. 
Yet  probably  in  every  book  there  are  at  least 
allusions  or  figures  which,  if  not  unintelligible 
without  it,  yet  become  more  clear  and  forcible 
by  its  illustrations. 

Geography,  or  at  least  geographical  names, 
must  often  be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
times  in  which  they  were  used.  In  Gen.  ii. 
10-14  is  a  careful  description  of  the  location  of 
Paradise ;  yet  writers  have  been  found  to  pro- 


184  THE  ART  OF  INTEBPEETING. 

pose  for  it  situations  in  almost  every  part  of 
the  world,  forgetting  that,  unless  the  compiler 
of  Genesis  wished  to  mislead  the  people,  he  must 
have  used  these  geographical  names  in  the  sense 
in  which  they  were  then  commonly  understood, 
and  that  two,  at  least,  of  the  rivers  mentioned 
have  continued  to  bear  the  same  names  from  a 
hoar  antiquity.  The  Hiddekel  (Tigris)  and  the 
Euphrates  must  have  been  the  Hiddekel  and  the 
Euphrates  of  Moses'  time.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  not  always  safe  to  conclude  the  identity  of 
place  from  the  identity  of  name,  since  several 
places  may  have  borne  the  same  name.  Thus 
Cush,  Sheba,  Tarshish,  and  many  more  stand,  in 
different  connections,  for  widely  separated  locali- 
ties. A  full  geographical  knowledge  will  gener- 
ally enable  the  interpreter  to  avoid  confounding 
one  with  the  other,  and  thus  to  avoid  serious  dif- 
ficulties. An  instructive  instance  is  that  of  the 
place  named  Dan.  In  Joshua  xix.  47  and  in 
Judges  xviii.  27-29  there  is  a  circumstantial  ac- 
count of  the  capture  of  a  certain  city,  Leshem  or 
Laish,  by  a  band  of  the  tribe  of  Dan,  and  of  their 
calling  it  "  after  the  name  of  their  father."  Of 
the  exact  situation  of  the  place  in  the  extreme 
north  of  the  land  and  at  one  of  the  sources  of 
the  Jordan,  there  can  be  no  manner  of  doubt, 
and  it  is  also  as  certain  that  its  conquest  and 
naming  occurred  during  the  period  of  the  Judges. 


THE  USE  OF  GEOGRAPHY.  185 

But  the  same  name,  Dan,  occurs  as  a  designa- 
tion of  a  place  in  the  extreme  north  of  the  land 
in  Deut.  xxxiv.  1,  and,  also,  in  the  same  geo- 
graphical connection  in  the  story  of  a  far  more 
remote  period  (Gen.  xiv.  14).  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, the  suggestion  of  a  later  date  of 
these  passages,  or  at  least  of  the  interpolation 
of  this  name  by  a  later  hand,  is  very  obvious. 
Against  this  the  plainly  archaic  character  of  Gen. 
xiv.  weighs  heavily,  and  the  fact  that,  in  that 
passage,  several  obsolete  names,  as  Bela,  Siddim, 
and  En-mishpat,  are  explained  is  a  strong  evi- 
dence that  Dan  was  at  the  time  of  the  compiler 
a  well  known  name  which  needed  no  explana- 
tion.^  We  have  here  a  conflict  of  evidence,  the 
solution  of  which  would  seem  to  be  that  the 
original  name  of  Laish  was  Dan,  and  that  when 
it  was  conquered  by  the  Danites  they  restored 
the  old  name  in  honor  of  their  ancestor ;  but 
while  such  a  solution  would  remove  the  diffi- 
culty, it  cannot  be  admitted  without  evidence. 
Probable  evidence  has  now  been  afforded  by  the 
discovery  of  a  sarcophagus  in  a  tomb  near  Sidou 
with  a  long  Phoenician  inscription  on  its  lid  in 

1  We  do  not  here  forget  the  ingenious  arg-ument  of  Dr.  Bart- 
lett  (addition  to  art.  "Dan"  in  Amer.  Ed.  of  Smith's  Bible 
Dictionary)  that  Dan  is  in  Gen.  xiv.  14  a  simple  substitution 
by  a  later  hand ;  but  the  evidence  seems  to  point  the  other 
way. 


186  THE  ABT  OF  INTERPRETING. 

which  Ashmunazer,  King  of  SidoD,  records  his 
conquest  of  Dor,  Joppa,  and  "  ample  corn  lands 
which  are  at  the  root  of  Dan."  ^  The  inscrip- 
tion has  been  somewhat  variously  translated, 
but  the  proper  names  are  believed  to  be  reliable. 
The  age  and  history  of  Ashmunazer  are  un- 
known, but  Joshua  pushed  his  conquest  ''unto 
great  Zidon  "  (Joshua  xi.  8),  and  it  appears  his- 
torically unlikely  that  any  later  king  of  Sidon 
should  have  been  powerful  enough  to  have  pos- 
sessed himself  of  these  places.  Thus  a  proba- 
bility appears  that  the  proposed  solution  is  his- 
torically true. 

The  wanderings  of  David  while  outlawed  by 
Saul  can  be  understood  only  by  a  knowledge, 
not  simply  of  the  geographical  position  of  the 
places  mentioned,  but  also  of  the  physical  fea- 
tures of  the  country  in  which  they  were  situated  ; 
and  several  of  the  psalms,  relating  to  the  events 
of  that  time,  have  a  fresh  force  and  power  if  the 
mind  is  able  to  picture  the  scenery  to  which  they 
refer. 

Saul's  journey  by  night  to  consult  the  witch 
of  Endor  is  to  be  considered  with  reference  to 
the  situation  of  his  own  camp  and  that  of  the 
Philistines,  showing   that    it  was  necessary  for 

1  Thomson,  The  Land  and  the  Book,  vol.  i.,  p.  201.  [But 
vide  last  edition  Central  Palestine  and  Phoenicia,  pp.  644, 
645.] 


THE  USE  OF  GEOGRAPHY.  187 

him  to  pass  and  repass  over  the  shoulder  of  the 
very  ridge  on  which  his  enemies  were  posted 
(1  Sam.  xxviii.).  And  the  immense  importance 
of  his  defeat  is  to  be  learned  from  the  fact  that, 
before  the  battle,  the  Pliilistines  had  succeeded 
in  getting  to  the  north  of  his  army  (1  Sam. 
xxviii.  4  ;  xxix.  1),  in  a  position  somewhat  north 
of  the  centre  of  the  land. 

A  moderate  knowledge  of  the  geography  of 
Asia  Minor  is  enough  to  explain  the  relative 
positions  of  Miletus  and  Ephesus  in  Acts  xx. 
16,  17,  and  how  it  was  that  St.  Paul  could  meet 
at  the  former  place  the  elders  of  the  church  of 
the  latter,  without  detention  on  the  journey  he 
was  so  anxious  to  accomplish. 

The  relative  positions  and  the  facilities  of 
communication  between  Ephesus,  Colosse,  and 
Laodicea  need  to  be  understood  for  the  explana- 
tion of  several  passages  in  Paul's  Epistles,  and 
for  that  of  several  allusions  to  persons  living  in 
or  traveling  through  these  cities. 

But  besides  this  geographical  knowledge  nec- 
essary to  the  interpretation  of  passages  which 
have  an  immediate  geographical  connection,  the 
well  furnished  interpreter  requires  such  a  thor- 
ough and  general  knowledge  of  the  country  in 
which  the  Biblical  writers  lived,  as  shall  enable 
him,  almost  unconsciously,  to  enter  into  the 
geographical  relations  in  which  they  were  placed, 


188  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

and  to  feel  the  influence  of  the  scenery  in  sight 
of  which  their  minds  were  moulded.  The  love 
of  nature,  and  the  references  to  nature  are  strik- 
ing features  in  the  sayings  of  many  of  the  sacred 
authors.  Even  in  the  human  development  of 
Him  who  was  more  than  man,  may  be  traced  the 
influence  of  His  surroundings.  The  situation 
of  Nazareth,  in  scenes  of  surpassing  loveliness 
among  the  Galilean  hills,  with  its  exquisite  views 
across  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  and  over  the  spurs 
of  Carmel  to  the  Mediterranean,  needs  to  be  un- 
derstood to  appreciate  the  beauty  of  nature  in 
the  midst  of  which  He  was  brought  up.  The 
suddenness  and  the  danger  of  the  storms  on  the 
Sea  of  Galilee  can  only  be  appreciated  by  a 
knowledge  of  its  situation  amidst  its  encircling 
hills.  The  pilgrims  from  Galilee  to  the  feasts 
at  Jerusalem  crossed  the  upper  fords  of  the 
Jordan,  traveled  down  its  eastern  bank,  and  re- 
crossed  at  the  fords  near  Jericho,  thereby  nearly 
doubling  the  length  of  their  journey  and  greatly 
increasing  its  difficulty.  This  route,  in  com- 
parison with  the  direct  one  through  Samaria,  is 
to  be  constantly  kept  in  mind  in  appreciating 
the  strength  of  the  hostility  between  the  Jews 
and  the  Samaritans,  as  well  as  to  explain  the 
fact  of  our  Lord's  being  found  at  Jericho  on 
his  way  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem.  There  are, 
indeed,  writers,  like  Paul   and   his  companion 


THE  USE  OF  GEOGRAPHY,  189 

Luke,  whose  lives  were  passed  so  largely  in 
cities  and  the  busiest  haunts  of  men  that  they 
seldom  allude  to  nature ;  but  this  is  exceptional, 
and  of  the  far  larger  number  of  Scripture  writ- 
ers it  is  emphatically  true,  that,  to  apjDreciate 
their  writings,  it  is  necessary  to  have  before  the 
mind's  eye  the  general  coloring  of  the  landscape 
on  which  they  looked  and  from  which  they  often 
draw  their  illustrations. 

It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  say  that  this 
knowledge  should  be  possessed  before  attempt- 
ing any  particular  work  of  interpretation.  The 
interpreter  may  indeed  stop  to  ascertain  some 
special  geographical  details  involved  in  the  pas- 
sage which  may  be  before  him  ;  but  the  acquisi- 
tion of  a  wider  knowledge  would  take  him  too 
long  and  too  far  from  his  immediate  work.  In- 
deed, it  often  happens  that  he  can  bring  a  previ- 
ously acquired  geographical  knowledge  to  bear 
most  effectively,  when,  but  for  the  knowledge 
possessed,  he  might  not  have  known  that  it 
would  be  of  use. 

A  mere  familiarity  with  distances  and  points 
of  the  compass  is  often  important  both  positively 
and  negatively.  The  situation  of  Bethlehem  on 
the  road  from  Hebron  to  Jerusalem,  and  only 
six  miles  from  the  latter,  helps  to  understand 
why  David,  who  was  born  and  brought  up  at 
Bethlehem,  should  have  established  his  throne 


190  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

first  at  Hebron  and  then  at  Jerusalem  (2  Sam.  v. 
5).  But  far  more  important  is  the  negative  fact 
concurring  with  so  many  others  in  the  life  and 
character  of  our  Lord.  He  was  born  at  Bethle- 
hem, the  city  of  David,  whose  successor  He  was 
and  on  whose  throne  He  was  to  sit  forever.  Yet, 
much  as  He  was  at  Jerusalem,  we  have  no  rec- 
ord of  His  ever  having  visited  Bethlehem  ;  none 
of  His  mighty  works  were  done  there,  and  none 
of  His  discourses  were  uttered  upon  its  hill. 
But  of  higher  value  than  mere  distances  and 
directions  are  the  physical  features  of  the  coun- 
try. To  keep  to  the  same  place  for  illustra- 
tion :  the  site  of  Bethlehem  is  a  limestone  hill 
"  on  the  summit  level  of  the  hill  country  of 
Judah,  with  deep  gorges  descending  east  to  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  west  to  the  plains  of  Philistia." 
Here  "  the  shepherds  of  Bethlehem  had  to  con- 
tend not  only  with  bears  and  lions,  whose  dens 
were  in  those  wild  wadies,  but  also  with  human 
enemies,  —  the  Philistines  on  the  west,  and  Arab 
robbers  on  the  east.  They  would  therefore, 
from  childhood,  be  accustomed  to  bear  fatigue, 
hunger,  heat  and  cold,  both  by  night  and  by 
day,  and  also  to  brave  every  kind  of  danger, 
and  fight  with  every  kind  of  antagonist."  It 
was  here  that  Joab  and  Abishai  were  trained, 
and  the  effect  of  such  surroundings  is  seen  in 
their  bravery  and  strong  characters,  and  also  in 


THE  USE  OF  GEOGRAPHY.  191 

their  hardness  and  self-sufficiency.  In  David 
the  same  natural  characteristics  spring  from  the 
same  influence  of  the  surroundings  of  his  youth ; 
but  we  see  how  powerful  was  the  influence  of 
that  grace  which,  leaving  this  bravery  and  en- 
ergy to  their  full  development,  yet  brought  them 
under  the  control  of  the  deepest  humility,  and 
transformed  the  self-dependent  and  self-willed 
warrior  into  one  who  ever  looked  to  the  will  of 
God  as  the  guide  of  his  life. 

It  is  plain  that  this  general  aid  to  interpreta- 
tion given  by  geography  is  not  to  be  sought 
from  its  study  at  the  moment  when  one  is  en- 
gaged in  the  elucidation  of  a  particular  passage, 
but  must  have  been  already  inwrought  in  the 
mind;  while  details  of  distances  and  situation, 
in  so  far  as  they  are  not  familiar,  may  be  looked 
up  at  the  moment,  just  as  one  would  consult  a 
dictionary  for  the  meaning  of  a  forgotten  word. 
In  either  case,  however,  the  interpreter,  on  tak- 
ing in  hand  a  passage,  should  seek  to  have  the 
writer  and  those  whom  he  addressed  as  vividly 
as  possible  before  his  mind  in  all  their  circum- 
stances and  surroundings  ;  and  in  the  great  ma- 
jority of  cases  geography  will  prove  one  of  the 
most  important  means  to  this  end. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  USE   OF    HISTORY,    GENERAL    AND    PARTIC- 
ULAR. 

In  the  application  of  history  to  exegesis  the 
interpreter  is  brought  into  contact  with  external 
authorities  more  directly  than  in  almost  any 
other  part  of  his  work ;  and  in  so  far  as  the 
chronology  of  history  is  concerned,  he  will  here 
encounter  some  of  his  most  serious  difficulties, 
requiring  patient  and  thorough  study  for  their 
solution. 

The  value  of  history  is,  primarily,  in  enabling 
us  to  understand  the  times  in  which  the  various 
books  of  the  Bible  were  written,  and  thus  the 
limitations  and  the  necessities  of  revelation. 
The  most  careless  reader  can  see  that  the  ser- 
mon on  the  mount  would  have  been  given  quite 
in  vain  to  the  Israelites  as  they  came  out  of 
Egypt,  and  that  the  discourse  in  John  xiv.-xvi. 
would  have  been  entirely  unadapted  to  the 
wants  of  those  who  heard  with  avidity  the  ser- 
mon on  the  mount.  Not  less  true  is  it  that  to 
the  very  end  of  our  Lord's  bodily  presence  with 


THE  USE  OF  HISTORY.  193 

His  disciples,  He  must  tell  them,  "  I  have  yet 
many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot 
bear  them  now"  (John  xvi.  12),  and  He  points 
them  forward  to  a  time  of  higher  enlightenment, 
"  when  He,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come  "  (i6. 
13)  ;  a  fuller  development  of  Christian  doctrine 
is  therefore  reasonably  to  be  looked  for  in  the 
epistles  than  was  possible  at  any  time  before  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  These  remarks  indicate  that 
there  has  been  a  gradually  increasing  fullness 
and  development  of  revelation,  and  that  the 
Scriptures  are  to  be  interpreted  in  view  of  this 
fact.  It  would  be  quite  unreasonable  to  look  for 
either  Christian  knowledge,  or  for  the  conduct 
which  can  only  be  based  on  that  knowledge,  in 
the  saints  of  the  old  dispensation.  At  the  same 
time  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  this  process  of 
development,  which  may  be  compared  with  that 
of  evolution  in  nature,  has  not  been  necessarily 
uniform.  There  have  been  eras  when  it  has 
been  set  forward  with  greatly  accelerated  rapid- 
ity of  progress,  and  there  have  even  been  times 
when,  for  the  sake  of  greater  progress  in  the 
future,  there  has  been  an  apparent,  and  even  in 
some  respects,  a  real  set  back,  man  having 
shown  himself  unequal  to  the  opportunities 
which  had  been  given  him.  Thus  Paul  teaches 
that  the  Scripture  "  preached  before  the  Gospel 
unto  Abraham"   (Gal.  iii.  8),  but  that  after- 


194  THE  ART  OF  INTEBPBETING. 

wards  the  law  "  was  added  because  of  trans- 
gressions" (ih.  19).  To  understand  the  Scrip- 
ture revelation,  it  is,  then,  evidently  necessary 
to  study  the  history  of  the  times  in  which  it  was 
given,  and  to  become  thoroughly  familiar  both 
with  the  opportunities  and  with  the  limitations 
belonoins:  to  the  times  of  the  writers. 

Much,  otherwise  obscure  in  the  oracles  of 
God,  will  in  this  way  become  clear.  It  has  al- 
ready been  pointed  out  in  the  Introduction  that 
the  Mosaic  laws  of  revenge,  of  slavery,  and 
of  polygamy  and  divorce,  were  of  the  nature 
of  restraining  laws,  leading  the  people  from  a 
lower  condition  up  as  far  as  they  could  bear 
towards  a  higher  standard.  But  the  educational 
purpose  of  the  law  is  seen  in  very  many  de- 
tails as  well  as  in  these  great  salient  features. 
History  shows  that  the  Israelites  were  not  yet  in 
a  condition  to  receive  and  act  upon  pri/ici^^Zes, 
but,  spiritual  children  as  they  were,  must  first 
be  prepared  for  these  by  a  long  pupilage  under 
special  precepts.  The  purpose  of  some  of  these 
is  expressly  declared  in  the  New  Testament. 
Thus  the  precept,  "Thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the 
mouth  of  the  ox  which  treadeth  out  the  corn  " 
(Deut.  XXV.  4),  even  as  a  precept  of  kindness 
and  mercy,  was  not  in  the  original  giving  of 
the  law,  but  only  in  its  recapitulation  after 
the  people  had  been  elevated  by  the  growing 


THE  USE  OF  HISTORY.  '   195 

up  of  a  fresh  generation  under  the  advantages 
of  the  Sinaitic  legislation ;  but  still  it  was  even 
then  a  merely  educational  precept,  which  Paul 
teaches  (1  Cor.  ix.  9 ;  1  Tim.  v.  18)  involved 
a  principle  applicable  to  the  spiritual  laborer  in 
the  divine  harvest. 

It  is  easy  to  see  the  educational  object  of  very 
many  other  precepts  which  do  not  happen  thus  to 
have  been  expressly  explained  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, so  that  in  these  lesser  matters,  as  well 
as  in  its  broader  features  and  in  its  types,  the 
law  was  still  in  accordance  with  its  general  pur- 
pose, "  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  to  Christ  " 
(Gal.  iii.  24).  If  any  single  precept  were  to  be 
selected  as  an  illustration,  reference  might  be 
made,  on  account  of  its  importance,  to  the  law 
of  ransom  in  Ex.  xxx.  14,  15 :  "  Every  one  that 
passeth  among  them  that  are  numbered,  from 
twenty  years  old  and  above,  shall  give  an  offer- 
ing unto  the  Lord.  The  rich  shall  not  give 
more,  and  the  poor  shall  not  give  less  than  half 
a  shekel,  when  they  give  an  offering  unto  the 
Lord,  to  make  an  atonement  for  your  souls." 
The  great  truth  of  the  absolute  equality  of  men 
before  God  —  a  truth  as  yet  reached  by  no 
other  nation,  and  after  thousands  of  years  of 
Divine  teaching,  still  only  with  difficulty  re- 
ceived under  the  full  noontide  of  the  Gospel  —  is 
here  clearly  set  forth  in  what  may  fitly  be  called 


196-         THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

an  "  object  lesson "  for  the  spiritual  infants  of 
Israel. 

Passing  from  this  general  use  of  history,  its 
value  is  next  to  be  considered  in  its  application 
to  particular  passages.  Down  to  the  time  of 
the  Babylonian  captivity  and  the  conquest  of 
Cyrus,  the  great  nations  whose  history  interlocks 
with  that  of  Israel  were  Egypt  on  the  one  side, 
and,  on  the  other,  the  nations  ruling  in  Mesopo- 
tamia and  Chaldea,  whether  Assyrian  or  Baby- 
lonian, while  of  lesser  nations,  the  most  impor- 
tant are  the  original  tribes  of  Canaan  and  those 
immediately  adjoining  the  land  of  Israel,  the 
Phoenicians,  the  Syrians,  the  Moabites,  Ammon- 
ites, Edomites,  the  Philistines,  and  the  various 
tribes  of  the  desert.  Of  the  history  of  the  first 
two,  large  and  authentic  memorials  have  re- 
cently been  brought  to  light  in  the  discovery 
and  reading  of  their  own  monumental  remains, 
and  this  means  of  information  is  being  con- 
stantly augmented  by  archaeological  and  philo- 
Wical  researches.  Of  the  smaller  nations  less 
is  known  except  from  the  Bible  itself,  from 
Josephus,  and  from  occasional  notices  of  them 
in  the  records  of  those  greater  nations.  Occa- 
sionally, however,  historic  notices  even  of  these 
are  brought  to  light,  as  in  the  discovery  of  the 
famous  "  Moabite  stone  "  in  1869.  The  bear- 
ing of  the  history  of   these  various  nations  on 


THE  USE  OF  HISTORY.  197 

the  interpretation  of  passages  of  Scripture  in 
which  they  are  more  or  less  directly  concerned 
is  obvious.  As  illustrations,  some  less  promi- 
nent points  may  be  selected  because  they  will 
better  show  how  far  these  histories  penetrate 
into  the  web  of  the  Scripture  story.  It  is 
related  of  Solomon  in  the  early  part  of  his  reign 
(1  Kings  iii.  1),  that  he  "  made  affinity  with 
Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt,  and  took  Pharaoh's 
daughter."  Now,  as  this  marriage  was  evi- 
dently contracted  with  political  ends  in  view, 
and  as  there  is  no  account  of  any  revolution  in 
either  Egypt  or  Israel,  it  is  somewhat  surpris- 
ing to  find  that  in  the  latter  part  of  Solomon's 
reign  Pharaoh  not  only  gave  asylum  to  his  ene- 
mies, as  Jeroboam  (1  Kings  xi.  40)  and  Hadad 
(ih.  18),  but  even  contracted  a  close  affinity 
with  the  latter  and  showed  him  especial  favor 
and  affection  {ib.  19-22).  The  wonder  is  in 
nowise  removed  by  learning  (i6.  40)  that  this 
Pharaoh's  name  was  Shishak,  and,  from  1  Kings 
xiv.  25,  26,  2  Chr.  xii.  2-9,  that  he  subse- 
quently made  an  expedition  at  the  head  of  a 
powerful  army  against  Rehoboam,  Solomon's 
son,  whom  he  despoiled  of  a  great  part  of  his 
treasures.  The  difficulty  is  at  once  solved  when 
it  is  observed  that  on  Egyptian  monuments  this 
Shishak  is  the  Sheshonk,  the  first  king  of  the 
xxist  dynasty.     There  had  been,  then,  in  Egypt 


198  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

a  change  of  dynasty,  the  new  dynasty  no  longer 
having  its  royal  city  at  Tanis,  but  at  Tell-Basta, 
and  altoo'ether  of  such  different  antecedents  and 
affinities  1  that  it  was  not  likely  to  feel  any 
resj^ect  for  the  policy  of  those  whom  it  had  sup- 
planted. This  fact  is  also  of  value  for  other 
points  of  interpretation.  Sheshonk  ascended 
the  throne  980  B.  c,  and  a  chronological  datum 
of  importance  is  thus  obtained.  Still  further, 
in  the  list  of  towns  given  in  the  inscription 
in  which  he  records  his  conquest  of  Judah, 
while  several  are  the  same  with  cities  fortified 
by  Rehoboam  in  the  early  part  of  his  reign 
(2  Chr.  xi.  7-9),  and  others  are  known  towns 
of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  there  are  also  several, 
which,  according  to  the  partition  of  the  king- 
dom, should  have  fallen  to  Jeroboam.  "  An  ex- 
amination, however,  of  these  names  shows  that 
the  cities  thus  situated  belong  to  two  classes,  — 
they  are  either  Canaanite  or  Lemtical.  Hence 
we  gather  that  during  the  four  years  which  im- 
mediately followed  the  separation  of  the  king- 
doms, Rehoboam  retained  a  powerful  hold  on 
the  dominions  of  his  rival,  many  Canaanite  and 
Levitical  towns  acknowledging  his  sovereignty, 
and  maintaining  themselves  against  Jeroboam, 
who  probably  called  in  Shishak  mainly  to  assist 
him  in  compelling  these    cities   to    submission. 

1  Mariette  Bey,  Aperqu  de  VHistoire  d^J^gt/pte,  p.  74. 


THE   USE  OF  HISTORY.  199 

The  campaign  was  completely  successful.  The 
Levitical  cities  of  Taanach,  Rehob,  Beth-horon, 
Kedemoth,  Ibleam,  and  Alemeth,  to  the  west  of 
Jordan,  of  Mahanaim  and  Golan,  to  the  east  of 
that  river,  and  the  great  Canaanite  towns  of 
Megiddo  and  Beth-shan  were  taken,  probably 
by  the  combined  forces  of  Jeroboam  and  Shi- 
shak,  and  were  added  to  the  dominions  of  the 
former.  Shishak  withdrew,  having  established 
his  ally  in  the  full  possession  of  the  whole  terri- 
tory which  he  claimed,  and  having  greatly 
weakened  and  humbled  his  rival.  It  was,  per- 
haj)s,  this  cause,  rather  than  the  Divine  prohibi- 
tion (1  Kings  xii.  24),  which  prevented  E,eho- 
boam  from  attempting  the  invasion  of  the  king- 
dom of  Israel  during  the  rest  of  his  reign."  ^ 

Another  illustration  from  the  Old  Testament 
may  be  treated  more  briefly.  In  2  Kings  xx.  12, 
13,  Isa.  xxxix.  1,  2,  there  is  an  account  of  an 
embassy  to  King  Ilezekiah  from  Babylon  after 
his  recovery  from  his  mortal  sickness.  We  are 
told  that  he  "  showed  them  all  the  house  of  his 
precious  things  .  .  .  there  was  nothing  in  his 
house  nor  in  all  his  dominion  that  Hezekiah 
showed  them  not."  Was  this  an  act  of  mere 
vanity  on  the  part  of  the  pious  monarch  ?  It  is 
hard  to  believe  it,  and  yet  no  reason  is  given 
for  it  in  the  sacred  narrative.     Can  any  light 

^  Rev.  Geo.  Rawlinson,  in  Speaker'' s  Com.,  1  Kings  xiv.  25. 


200  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

be  thrown  upon  his  conduct  from  historical  con- 
siderations ?  At  this  time,  Babylon  was  an  un- 
easy tributary  to  Nineveh,  with  difficulty  held 
in  subjection  by  the  great  Assyrian  monarchy, 
and  was  doubtless  even  now  looking  for  alli- 
ances (which  it  afterwards  found  in  the  Medes) 
to  enable  it  to  throw  off  the  hated  yoke.  Judah 
was  much  in  the  same  condition  ;  during  part  of 
his  reign,  Hezekiah  was  actually  a  tributary  to 
Sennacherib,  and,  when  he  revolted,  suffered 
terribly  at  the  hands  of  his  powerful  enemy 
and  only  escaped  by  providential  interposition. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  can  scarcely  be 
doubted  that  the  embassy  from  Babylon  had  a 
political  significance,  and  that  Hezekiah  sought 
to  present  his  resources  in  such  a  light  as  to 
show  that  his  alliance  was  worth  having.  Hence 
we  can  understand  the  severity  and  the  peculiar 
appropriateness  of  the  consequent  doom.  In- 
stead of  trusting  entirely  in  the  Lord,  he  was 
looking  for  earthly  succor.  The  very  aid  he 
sought  should  be  the  instrument  of  his  king- 
dom's destruction,  and  the  very  treasures  by 
which  he  sought  to  attract  it  should  be  carried 
as  a  spoil  to  Babylon. 

In  the  interpretation  of  prophecy  history  is  of 
essential  service.  Prophecy  is  usually  an  out- 
line sketch,  the  details  of  which  it  is  impossible 
to  fill  out  before  the  fulfillment.     It  has  in  it 


THE  USE  OF  HISTORY.  201 

nothing  of  vagueness  and  uncertainty,  like  the 
heathen  oracles  which  could  be  made  to  fit  any 
event ;  for  the  lines  which  are  given  are  sharp 
and  bold  and  strong.  But  we  have  no  power  to 
judge  of  their  connections  and  the  manner  and 
method  of  their  fulfillment,  nor,  generally,  of  the 
time.  It  is  as  if  one  traced  on  paper  the  simple 
outline  against  the  sky  of  what  he  may  see  from 
his  window,  —  houses,  trees,  and  distant  hills ; 
take  the  sketch  away  from  the  place  where  it 
was  made,  and  no  man  could  make  out  the 
details  with  certainty,  but  taking  the  sketch  in 
his  hand,  he  may  go  round  the  world  and  it  will 
fit  nowhere  until  he  come  to  the  exact  place 
from  which  it  was  made,  and  then  all  becomes 
intelligible.  So  with  the  sketches  of  prophecy ; 
we  can  seldom  understand  more  than  their  most 
prominent  lines  until  we  are  borne  on  the  course 
of  time  to  that  period  of  the  world  concerning 
which  the  sketch  was  given,  and  then  all  is  clear. 
By  far  the  larger  part  of  the  prophecies  of  the 
word  of  God  have  been  long  since  fulfilled,  and 
hence  the  value  of  history  in  enabling  us  to  un- 
derstand them.  Our  Lord  warned  His  disciples 
to  flee  in  all  haste  when  they  should  "  see  the 
abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel 
the  prophet,  stand  in  the  holy  place  "  (Matt, 
xxiv.  15).  It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  any 
of  those  who  heard  His  words  understood  pre- 


202  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

cisely  what  they  meant ;  but  within  forty  years 
the  Roman  armies  with  their  idolatries  closed  in 
upon  Jerusalem,  and  then  they  saw  the  predic- 
tion fulfilled,  and  all  who  trusted  in  His  word 
fled  from  the  devoted  city  to  Pella,  and  thus  es- 
caped the  horrors  and  destruction  of  the  final 
siege  of  Jerusalem. 

Sometimes  the  sacred  volume  itself  furnishes 
the  history  required  for  the  interpretation  of 
prophecy :  as  e.  ^.,  the  story  of  the  Gospel  alone 
can  explain  the  predictions  of  a  glorious  and  yet 
suffering  Messiah  ;  sometimes  secular  history 
alone  must  be  resorted  to,  as  is  the  case  with 
much  of  the  prophecies  of  the  world  empires  in 
the  book  of  Daniel  and  notably  with  those  in 
chap.  xi.  ;  sometimes  the  two  must  be  combined, 
and  sometimes  no  fulfillment  is  anywhere  dis- 
tinctly recorded,  but  it  may  be  inferred  from 
facts  and  circumstances  incidentally  mentioned. 
A  curious  instance  of  the  last  is  to  be  found  in 
the  dying  prophecy  of  Jacob  concerning  his  sons 
(Gen.  xlix.  5-7)  :  — 

"  Simeon  and  Levi  are  brethren ; 


I  will  divide  them  in  Jacob, 
And  scatter  them  in  Israel." 


There  is  no  difficulty  in  regard  to  Levi ;  the 
curse  was  indeed,  afterwards,  transformed  into  a 
blessing  when  he  was  made  the  especial  tribe  of 


THE  USE  OF  HISTORY.  203 

the  sanctuary  in  consequence  of  tlie  zeal  shown 
by  him  on  God's  behalf ;  still  the  prophecy  was 
literally  accomplished.  Levi  had  no  inherit- 
ance among  the  tribes,  but  was  scattered  through 
the  land  in  the  appointed  Levitical  cities.  No 
such  fate  was  in  store  for  Simeon ;  the  lot  for 
this  tribe  was  assigned  on  the  southern  border 
of  Judah  and  he  entered  on  its  possession. 
There  is  no  record  of  his  having  left  it,  and 
none  of  his  being  "  scattered  in  Israel."  Was, 
then,  the  prophecy  fulfilled,  and  if  so,  how? 
The  territory  assigned  to  him  was  one  which 
gradually  assumed  more  and  more  of  a  desert 
character  and  became  less  and  less  agreeable  as 
a  residence,  at  the  same  time  that  it  was  pe- 
culiarly exposed  to  the  forays  of  the  Philistines 
and  the  incursions  of  the  nomadic  tribes  of  the 
desert.  There  were  therefore  strong  reasons  for 
their  leaving  their  ancestral  home.  Even  as 
early  as  the  time  of  the  outlawry  of  David, 
when  much  of  the  Scripture  story  is  concerned 
with  the  country  at  and  beyond  the  south  of 
Judah,  there  is  no  mention  of  Simeon.  When 
the  kingdom  was  divided,  Simeon  cast  in  his  lot 
with  the  northern  division  as  one  of  the  ten  tribes. 
It  is  impossible  that  this  could  have  been  done 
if  Simeon  had  remained  in  his  original  allot- 
ment, with  the  tribe  of  Judah  intervening,  in 
generally  hostile  attitude,  between  him  and  the 


204  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

body  of  the  nation  to  which  he  adhered.  It  is 
therefore  evident  that  this  tribe  had  already  mi- 
grated northward,  and  as  there  was  no  room 
for  them  as  a  whole,  they  must  have  been  scat- 
tered among  the  other  tribes. 

In  the  New  Testament,  history  was  formerly 
appealed  to  chiefly  in  the  settlement  of  chrono- 
logical questions ;  but  the  importance  of  its  bear- 
ing upon  interpretation  in  other  relations  is  now 
more  and  more  appreciated.  The  personal  char- 
acters and  the  careers  of  such  persons  as  Herod 
the  Great,  Herod  Agrippa,  Pilate,  Felix,  Gallio, 
and  many  others  need  to  be  seen  historically  in 
order  to  understand  at  once  their  conduct  and 
the  demeanor  of  others  towards  them.  The  his- 
tory of  opinion  is  necessary  to  explain  the  par- 
ties and  sects  encountered  in  the  Gospel  narra- 
tive, and  show  why  the  statement  of  Christian 
truth  should  have  been  thrown  into  exactly  the 
mould  seen  in  each  of  the  several  epistles.  For 
the  use  of  the  word  'lovSaioi  in  the  Gospel  of 
John,  history  supplies  a  reason  in  the  fact  that 
when  this  Gospel  was  written  the  Christian 
church  had  become  completely  severed  from  its 
Jewish  cradle,  and  "  the  Jews,"  as  such,  were 
recognized  as  an  antagonistic  body,  which  was 
not  the  case  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
when  the  other  Gospels  were  written. 

In  John  ii.  20  the  Jews  are  represented  as 


THE  USE  OF  HISTORY.  205 

saying  "  forty  and  six  years  was  this  temple  in 
building."  The  statement  is  one  made  by  the 
Jews  themselves,  and  curiosity  is  therefore  nat- 
urally aroused  in  regard  to  its  meaning.  The 
temple  of  Solomon  was  seven  years  only  in 
course  of  construction  (1  Kings  vi.  38),  that  of 
the  return  from  the  captivity,  availing  itself  of 
the  vast  substructions  of  Solomon's  temple  still 
remaining,  was  only  four  years,  reckoning  from 
the  time  when  its  building  was  begun  anew  after 
the  interruption  caused  by  Tatnai  (Ezra  iv.  24  ; 
vi.  15).  There  is  no  record  in  Scripture  of  the 
building  of  any  other  temple ;  but  Josephus 
details  at  length  its  rebuilding,  piecemeal,  by 
Herod  the  Great,  and  tells  us  that  the  work 
was  begun  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign  ^ 
and  only  completed  in  the  reign  of  Herod  Ag- 
rippa  II.,  A.  D.  64.2  "j^jj^  ^hole  period  of  the 
work  was  therefore  above  eighty  years;  but, 
one  part  of  it  being  rebuilt  at  a  time,  the  Jews 
speak  of  what  had  then  been  accomplished. 
Thus  we  learn  that  from  the  eighteenth  year  of 
Herod's  reign  (734-35  A.  u.  c.)  to  the  time  of 
our  Lord's  first  passover  was  forty-six  years. 

The  bearing  of  history  upon  the  chronology 
of  the  sacred  records  is  important,  but  not  un- 
attended with   serious  difficulties.     The   sacred 

1  Ant,  xv.,11,  §  1. 

2  Ant.,  XX.,  9,  §  7. 


206  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

writers  had  no  era  from  which  to  compute  the 
years,  like  the  Greek  Olympiads  or  the  Roman 
"  A.  U.  C."  ;  but  reckoned  altogether  by  the  years 
of  the  reigning  monarch.  Hence,  before  the 
foundation  of  the  monarchy  we  have  almost  no 
reliable  data,  and  after  the  division  of  the 
kingdom  these  is,  within  certain  limits,  great 
confusion  from  reckoning  the  accession  of  each 
monarch  by  the  year  of  the  reign  of  the  rival 
monarch  without  any  indication  of  the  part  of 
the  year  in  which  the  accession  took  place.  It 
has  been  the  custom  to  attempt  to  fix  the  chro- 
nology of  early  times  by  the  genealogies  of  the 
book  of  Genesis  ;  but,  independently  of  the  fact 
that  these  are  given  with  considerable  variations 
in  the  Hebrew,  the  Samaritan,  and  the  Greek,  it 
appears  from  a  careful  examination  of  tbem 
that  they  can  in  no  case  form  a  reliable  basis 
for  chronology.^  We  are  forced  to  rely,  there- 
fore, almost  entirely  upon  the  records  of  history 
for  the  chronology  of  the  earliest  ages,  and  also 
for  its  detail  in  many  particulars  of  a  later 
time. 

In  the  New  Testament,  points  of  chronology 
are  determined  entirely,  especially  in  Luke  and 
the  Acts,  by  reference  to  the  persons  and  events 

1  See  article  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  xxx.   (April,  1873) 
p.  323,  on  "  The  Chronological  Value  of  the  Genealogy  in  Gen- 


THE  USE  OF  HISTORY.  207 

of  contemporaneous  history.  A  single  illustra- 
tion may  suffice  to  show  at  once  the  importance 
and  the  difficulty  of  this  bearing  of  history 
upon  the  sacred  chronology.  The  time  of  the 
birth  of  our  Lord  is  fixed  by  Luke  (ii.  2)  as 
occurring  at  the  period  of  the  enrolment  of 
the  Jews  under  the  governorship  of  Cyrenius 
(Quirinius).  But  we  know  from  Josephus^  that 
P.  S.  Quirinius  became  governor  of  Syria  in 
A.  D.  6,  and  there  is  thus  an  apparent  anach- 
ronism in  the  record  of  Luke,  which  has  for 
many  years  occasioned  extreme  difficulty  to  in- 
terpreters. By  the  learned  and  laborious  his- 
torical researches  of  A.  W.  Zumpt,  however,  it  is 
made  highly  probable  that  Quirinius  was  twice 
governor  of  Syria,  and  that  his  former  governor- 
ship was  about  from  b.  c.  4-1.  The  difficulty 
thus  apparently  removed,  reappears  again  in  a 
slight  degree  on  finding  that  the  preceding  gov- 
ernor, Quintilius  Varus,  was  still  employed  in 
subduing  a  revolt  of  the  Jews  after  the  death  of 
Herod,  which  occurred  after  our  Lord's  birth.^ 
As  yet,  no  historical  explanation  of  this  has 
been  found ;  but,  the  whole  period  of  difficulty 
having  now  been  reduced  to  a  few  months,  it 
may  well  be  supposed  that  the  enrollment  was 
begun  by  Varus,  but,  being  left  incomplete  by 

1  Ant,  xvii.,  13,  §  5 ;  xviii.,  1,  §  1. 

2  Tac,  Hist.,  v.,  9;  Jos.,  Ant,  xvii.,  10. 


208  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

him  on  account  of  the  terrible  disorders  which 
filled  the  close  of  his  governorship,  it  was  fin- 
ished by  Quirinius,  and  therefore  attributed  to 
him.  It  is  noticeable  that  Luke  calls  this  en- 
rollment TrpajTTy,  to  distinguish  it  from  another 
enrollment  in  Quirinius'  second  governorship  in 
A.  D.  6,  to  which  allusion  is  made  in  his  record 
of  Gamaliel's  speech  in  Acts  v.  37. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE   USE   OF   ARCHEOLOGY   AND   ANTIQUITIES. 

So  much  has  been  said  elsewhere  incidentally 
upon  this  subject  that  it  may  here  be  treated 
briefly.  Yet  it  is  evident  that  as  the  study  of 
archaeology  must  be  one  of  the  bases  of  any  his- 
tory worthy  of  the  name,  so  it  must  be  one  of  the 
essentials  to  the  full  understanding  of  all  those 
parts  of  the  Bible  which  have  a  historical  side. 
To  understand  the  character  and  needs  of  the 
Israelites  at  the  time  of  the  Mosaic  legislation, 
and  therefore  to  appreciate  so  much  of  the  rea- 
son for  this  legislation  as  is  involved  in  that 
character  and  those  needs,  we  must  know  the 
influences,  the  manners  and  customs,  the  polity 
and  the  religion,  under  which  they  and  their 
fathers  had  hitherto  lived ;  in  other  words,  we 
must  study  the  archaeology  of  Egypt.  In  the 
same  way  the  archaeology  of  the  Chaldeans  is 
necessary  to  a  full  understanding  of  the  prophe- 
cies of  Ezekiel,  delivered  to  the  captives  settled 
by  the  river  Chebar. 

To  come  to  a  later  time :  in  order  to  bring 
before  the  mind's  eye  a  vivid  picture   of   our 


210  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

Lord  in  His  ministry  on  earth,  and  thus  to  enter 
into  the  full  force  of  His  teachings,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  know  the  character  of  the  houses  in  which 
the  people  lived,  their  modes  of  travel,  the  roads 
b}^  which  they  passed,  the  nature  of  their  occu- 
pations, their  customs  of  trade  and  of  agricul- 
ture, their  relations  to  the  Greeks,  the  Romans, 
and  others  who  lived  among  them,  in  a  word,  all 
that  is  embraced  in  the  archaeology  of  the  Pales- 
tine of  that  period.  Later  still,  the  travels,  the 
voyages,  the  manifold  experiences  of  Paul,  de- 
pend largely  for  their  interpretation  upon  the 
archaeology  of  the  countries  through  which  he 
passed.  As  an  illustration  of  this,  in  what 
may  be  called  an  almost  unnoticed  corner  of 
Scripture,  take  the  note  in  what  may  be  called 
Luke's  journal  in  Acts  xxviii.  13  :  "  We  came 
the  next  day  to  Puteoli,  where  we  found  breth- 
ren." The  ruins  of  Puteoli,  now  Pozzuoli,  are 
still  visible  a  few  miles  west  of  Naples.  There 
is  but  one  place  where  the  ship  in  which  Paul 
sailed  could  have  landed  him  and  his  fellow- 
prisoners.  This  is  a  very  long  and  narrow 
quay,  stretching  far  out  from  the  shore  and 
with  the  end  now  submerged.  As  the  Apostle 
landed  on  this  and  was  marched  by  the  centu- 
rion to  the  shore,  he  had  directly  before  him,  at 
the  head  of  the  quay,  the  famous  temple  of 
Serapis.     It  was  a  temple  which,  in  this  Greek 


THE  USE  OF  ARCHAEOLOGY.  211 

colony,  bore  witness  to  the  decaying  religions 
of  the  classic  nations,  and  showed  the  effort  to 
bolster  them  up  by  the  introduction  of  foreign 
superstitions  ;  for  Serapis  was  an  Egyptian  deity. 
It  also  bore  witness  to  the  hollowness,  priest- 
craft, and  fraud  of  those  religions ;  for  this 
temple  was  famous  for  its  miraculous  cures,  the 
secret  of  which  is  exposed  by  the  thermal  and 
medicinal  springs  which  flow  through  the  ady- 
tum of  the  temple.  It  was  in  the  midst  of  the 
worship  and  the  ideas  which  this  temple  symbol- 
ized that  Paul  found  "  Christian  brethren."  His 
and  their  position,  the  conflict  which  awaited  the 
truth  Paul  preached,  the  nature  of  his  work,  the 
difficulties  and  dangers  he  was  called  to  undergo, 
are  all  illustrated  by  this  little  bit  of  archaeology. 
In  passing,  it  may  be  noticed  how  this  same 
temple  illustrates  also  the  parables  of  our  Lord 
of  the  mustard  seed  (Matt.  xiii.  31,  32)  and  of 
the  leaven  (i6.  33).  This  temple  stood  then, 
and  for  some  ages  after,  in  its  full  splendor, 
while  Paul,  because  he  was  a  Christian,  was  com- 
pelled to  march  as  a  prisoner  before  its  gate. 
It  still  bears  a  marble  inscription  testifying  to 
the  liberality  of  Augustus  in  its  repairs.  Ages 
passed  by.  The  then  little  seed  of  the  church 
grew  and  strengthened  until  the  heathen  temples 
became  neglected,  and  were  suffered  to  fall  into 
decay.     The  ground  on  which  this  temple  stood 


212  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

gradually  sunk  beneath  the  level  of  the  sea, 
while  the  rubbish  accumulated  around  its  pil- 
lars of  Egyptian  marble  until  it  had  risen  to 
twelve  feet  of  their  height  and  the  sea  rose 
upon  them  to  nineteen  feet,  the  exact  measure- 
ments being  marked  by  the  borings  of  the  ma- 
rine lithodo?nus  in  the  part  below  the  water  and 
unprotected  by  the  rubbish.  Centuries  rolled 
away  and  the  temple  of  Serapis  was  forgotten. 
At  last,  the  rising  ground  lifted  it  again  above 
the  waves,  and  it  could  be  safely  examined  and 
its  history  sought  out  by  the  Christian  as  a  monu- 
ment of  a  buried  superstition,  which  had  passed 
away  with  the  once  mighty  empires  of  Egypt,  of 
Greece,  and  of  Kome. 

In  the  narrative  of  our  Lord's  standing  before 
Caiaphas  and  of  His  being  thrice  denied  by  His 
boldest  Apostle  there  are  certain  difficulties 
which  are  removed  by  a  knowledge  of  the 
structure  of  an  oriental  house.  The  trial  being 
held  in  the  night,  it  was  without  doubt  in  the 
high  priest's  own  palace,  and  this  was  built, 
after  the  eastern  fashion,  around  the  four  sides 
of  an  open  court  with  a  passage  way  of  some 
length  leading  from  the  street  to  the  court.  By 
reason  of  the  cold,  a  fire  had  been  built  in 
this  open  court  where  Peter  stood  and  warmed 
himself  (John  xviii.  18),  while  his  Master, 
bound,  stood  at  the  entrance  of  a  room  in  which 


THE  USE  OF  ARCHEOLOGY.  213 

Caiaphas  was  seated  and  which  opened  upon  the 
court.  As  the  trial  went  on  and  the  accusations 
grew  more  fierce,  Peter  shrunk  back  into  the 
passage  way  (^avXrj^,  but  with  the  light  from  the 
fire  still  shining  upon  him  (Luke  xxii.  36}, 
when  the  woman  who  kept  the  door  (John  xviii. 
17)  recognized  him  as  the  one  whom  she  had 
admitted  with  John,  and  accused  him  as  a  dis- 
ciple. Then  came  his  first  denial.  As  time 
went  on  he  again  drew  near  the  fire  and  mingled 
with  the  crowd  standing  round  it ;  but  one  and 
another  began  to  whisper  about  him,  another 
maid  (Matt.  xxvi.  71)  saying  to  those  around 
her  (rot?  cKci)  that  he  was  with  Jesus,  and  then 
the  same  maid  (Mark  xiv.  69)  taking  up  the 
word  and  giving  assurance  of  its  truth  to  those 
that  stood  by  (^to7^  Trapco-rujo-iv),  Peter,  meanwhile, 
withdrawing  from  their  gaze  and  whisperings  to 
the  passage  way  (^TrpoavXcov,  Mark  xiv.  68)  near 
the  gate  (ct?  rbv  TrvAcui/a,  Matt.  xxvi.  71),  when 
after  a  little,  a  man  (/aera  f3paxv  hepo^,  Luke  xxii. 
58)  seeing  him  directly  accused  him  and  he 
again  denied,  John  summing  up  the  whole  of 
the  confused  scene  by  using  the  plural  "  they 
said  to  him"  (eiTrov  ovv  avrw,  xviii.  25),  in  which 
we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  ovr,  therefore, 
which  refers  to  the  whisperings  and  accusa- 
tions which  had  been  going  on  around  the  fire. 
Finally,  after  a  little  time  (/xera  fxcKpov,  Matt.  xxvi. 


214  THE  ABT  OF  INTERPRETING. 

73,  Mark  xiv.  70),  definitely  fixed  by  Luke  as 
"about  an  hour"  (verse  59),  the  accusations 
were  renewed,  according  to  the  first  two  Evan- 
gelists, by  several  persons,  while  according  to 
Luke  (verse  59)  their  spokesman  was  another 
man  (aAXo?  rt?),  who  is  identified  by  John  as  a 
servant  of  the  high  priest  and  a  kinsman  of  the 
one  whose  ear  Peter  had  cut  off,  the  multitudi- 
nous accusations  being  that  he  was  a  Galilean 
(Matt.,  Mark,  Luke),  and  more  particularly, 
that  he  had  been  seen  in  the  garden  (John). 
Again  came  a  denial  with  oaths,  and  then  the 
Master,  who  was  standing  in  a  position  from 
which  Peter  could  be  seen,  turned  and  looked 
upon  him,  and  brought  him  to  his  bitter  repent- 
ance. The  simple  knowledge  of  tfie  probable 
structure  of  the  house,  with  attention  to  the 
exact  language  used  by  each  of  the  Evangelists, 
thus  removes  what  has  sometimes  been  consid- 
ered as  a  marked  discrepancy  in  the  narrative. 

A  knowledge  of  the  different  methods  of  reck- 
onins:  the  hours  of  the  day  in  use  at  the  time 
the  Gospels  were  written  is  valuable,  both  for 
removing  an  apparent  discrepancy  between  the 
Gospels,  and  also  for  the  better  understanding 
of  several  passages  in  John.  That  the  common 
Jewish  method  of  numbering  the  hours  from 
sunrise  was  followed  by  the  Synoptists,  admits 
of  no  question  ;   but  there  was  another  system, 


THE   USE  OF  ARCHAEOLOGY.  215 

tlie  official  system  of  the  Romans,  with  which 
John  must  have  been  acquainted.  The  exist- 
ence of  this  system  has  been  doubted,  but  the 
foUowin"-  citations  must  remove  all  doubt  on 
that  point:  Pliny  writes,  "Ipsum  diem  alii 
aliter  observavere  .  .  .  vulgus  omne  a  luce  ad 
tenebras :  sacerdotes  Romani,  et  qui  diem  defi- 
niere  civilem,  item  ^gyptii  et  Hipparchus,  a 
media  node  in  mediamy  ^  Also  Aulus  Gel- 
lius,  '•  Populum  autem  Romanum  ita,  uti  Varro 
dixit,  dies  singulos  adnumerare  a  media  node 
usque  ad  mediam  proximam  multis  argumentis 
ostenditur,"  and  he  goes  on  to  give  these  proof s.^ 
Assuming  that  John  used  this  reckoning,  not 
only  is  the  difficulty  between  John  xix.  14  and 
Mark  XV.  25  entirely  removed,  but  an  impor- 
tant help  is  gained  in  the  interpretation  of  all 
the  other  passages  in  John  in  which  mention  is 
made  of  the  hour.  The  congruity  of  this  sys- 
tem with  his  narrative  throughout  is  a  weighty 
reason  for  thinking  that  he  adopted  it.  Thus 
in  i.  37—40  mention  is  made  of  the  two  disciples 
of  John  the  Baptist  who  sought  an  interview 
wdth  Jesus  "  and  remained  with  him  that  day : 
it  w^as  about  the  tenth  hour."  According  to  the 
Jewish  system,  this  would  have  been  about  four 
in  the  afternoon,  allowing  but  short  time  for  that 

1  Pliny,  Nat.  Hist.,  ii ,  79. 

2  Aul.  Gellius,  Nod.  Att.,  lib.  iii.,  2. 


216  THE  ABT  OF  INTERPRETING. 

interview  which  had  so  great  an  effect  on  their 
opinions  and  changed  their  whole  subsequent 
life  ;  but  by  the  other  reckoning  it  was  about  ten 
in  the  morning,  which  allows  a  more  probable 
length  of  time  for  the  interview.  In  John  iv. 
4-30  occurs  the  account  of  the  discourse  with 
the  woman  of  Samaria ;  ver.  6  states  that  "it  was 
about  the  sixth  hour  "  when  Jesus,  wearied  with 
the  way,  sat  on  the  well  and  the  woman  came  to 
draw  water.  It  would  be  contrary  to  all  orien- 
tal usage  that  she  should  have  gone  out  of  the 
city  to  draw  water  in  the  heat  of  noon,  but  if 
John  is  understood  to  use  that  reckoning  of 
the  hours  which  made  this  six  in  the  evening, 
her  action  becomes  perfectly  natural,  and  our 
Lord's  hunger  and  weariness  is  also  explained. 
Once  more,  in  John  iv.  52,  the  nobleman  of  Ca- 
pernaum learns  from  his  servants  (who  had  come 
to  meet  him)  that  his  son  had  been  healed  at 
the  seventh  hour  of  the  previous  day,  — the  same 
hour  at  which  Jesus  had  spoken  to  him.  If, 
according  to  Jewish  usage,  1  P.  M.  had  been 
meant  by  the  "  seventh  hour "  it  is  incredible 
that  the  nobleman  and  his  servants  should  not 
have  met  until  the  following  day.  The  site, 
indeed,  of  both  Cana  and  Capernaum  is  in 
doubt,  yet  fixed  within  such  limits  that  the  jour- 
ney from  the  one  to  the  other  could  easily  have 
been  performed  after  one  o'clock.     The  servants 


THE   USE  OF  ARCHAEOLOGY.  217 

would  have  had  time  to  bring  the  joyful  news 
quite  to  Cana,  and  the  nobleman  would  have 
had  time  to  reach  his  son  at  Capernaum ;  going 
towards  each  other  they  would  of  course  have 
met  much  sooner.  But  if  the  "  seventh  hour  " 
was  our  seven  in  the  evening,  the  journey  of 
either  party  mast  have  been  deferred  until  the 
next  morning.  Hence  when  they  met,  they  said 
''''  yeste7'day,  at  the  seventh  hour  the  fever  left 
him."  It  may  then  very  certainly  be  concluded 
that  John  uses  throughout  this  method  of  nam- 
ing the  hours  ;  as,  though  the  cases  cited  are  the 
only  instances,  there  are  no  instances  whatever 
of  the  commoner  method  of  the  Synoptists. 

Another  case  of  supposed  opposition  in  the 
parallel  passages  of  the  Gospels  may  be  ex- 
plained in  the  same  way  by  reference  to  the  cus- 
toms of  the  times.  On  our  Lord's  last  journey 
to  Jerusalem  He  passed  through  Jericho  with 
the  crowd  of  pilgrims  going  up  to  the  Feast. 
On  this  occasion  He  healed  two  blind  men 
according  to  Matthew,  of  whom  only  one,  Bar- 
timeus,  the  more  prominent,  is  mentioned  by  the 
other  Evangelists.  But  the  first  two  Evangel- 
ists say  expressly  that  this  was  when  He  w^as 
departed  from  Jericho  (^eK~opevojxivoiv  avrCjv  a-o 
'Icpctx^,  Matt.  XX,  29 ;  and,  in  the  singular, 
Mark  x.  46),  while  Luke  says  that  it  was  while 
he  was   drawing   near  to  Jericho  (eV  rw  iyytt,av 


218  THE  ABT  OF  INTERPRETING. 

avTov  ek  'lepeixo),  Liike  xix,  35).  From  tlie  leis- 
urely character  of  this  whole  journey  and  the 
constant  embracing  of  every  opportunity  to 
teach,  it  is  altogether  likely  that  our  Lord  spent 
some  days  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jericho.  It 
is  the  well-known  custom  of  travelers  in  the 
East  on  visiting  a  city  to  lodge  without  its 
walls,  as  may  be  illustrated  by  our  Lord's  own 
lodging  at  Bethany  during  the  following  week 
spent  at  Jerusalem,  and  as  is  still  the  custom 
with  travelers  in  Palestine  at  the  present  day  ; 
in  fact,  at  the  time  of  the  Passover,  it  would 
have  been  impossible  for  the  crowd  of  pilgrims 
passing  through  to  have  found  lodgings  within 
the  city.  Now  if  these  two  very  probable  sup- 
positions, the  latter  of  which  results  from  a 
known  archaeological  fact,  be  put  together,  the 
difficulty  is  easily  solved.  The  miracle  occurred 
when  our  Lord  had  gone  out  of  Jericho  for  the 
night,  and  more  exactly,  when  He  was  drawing 
near  to  it  again  in  the  morning. 

In  the  use  of  archaeology  in  these  and  a  mul- 
titude of  similar  instances  of  interpretation,  it  is 
plain  that  the  archaeological  facts  cannot  be 
hunted  up  by  the  interpreter  in  connection  with 
the  particular  passage  he  is  explaining.  He 
would  have  no  clue  to  what  he  should  seek,  or 
to  where  it  could  be  found.  His  mind  must 
be   already  familiar  with  the   facts,    and   then 


THE  USE  OF  ARCHEOLOGY.  219 

wlien  the  occasion  arises  to  which  they  are 
aj^plicable,  they  will  present  themselves  to  his 
consideration. 

Archaeology  often  gives  a  fresh  view  of  the 
meaning  of  the  text  when  there  are  no  difficul- 
ties to  be  removed.  In  2  Tim.  iv.  13  Paul  di- 
rects Timothy  when  he  should  come  to  him  to 
bring  certain  things  left  at  Troas,  and  among 
them  "  the  books,  but  especially  the  parchments." 
AVhat  were  these  parchments  ?  Archaeology 
shows  but  two  kinds  of  material  used  for  manu- 
scripts, papyrus  and  parchment.  The  former 
was  by  far  the  cheaper  and  more  common  ;  it  is 
probable  that  this  very  epistle  was  written  upon 
it.  But  it  was  also  fragile  and  easily  destroyed 
by  much  use,  so  that  all  the  more  valuable  works 
were  written  on  parchment  when  it  could  be 
obtained.  Paul  was  not  in  circumstances  to 
spend  much  upon  literary  treasures,  and  yet  he 
had  some  parchments.  These,  then,  must  have 
contained  the  books  most  highly  prized  by  him, 
and  the  inference  seems  a  safe  one  that  in  all 
probability  they  were  copies  of  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament.  In  Gen.  xli.  42  it  is  said,  "  Pharaoh 
took  oif  his  ring  from  his  hand,  and  put  it  upon 
eloseph's  hand."  One  wonders  how  the  ring 
that  fitted  the  finger  of  Pharaoh  also  happened  to 
fit  that  of  Josejih.  In  the  British  Museum  many 
signet  rings  of  ancient  Egypt  are  preserved,  and 


220  THE  ABT  OF  INTERPRETING. 

a  considerable  number  of  them  are  not  joined 
together  solidly,  as  in  a  modern  ring,  but  are 
connected  by  a  spiral  spring  of  gold  wire,  allow- 
ing them  to  fit  any  finger. 

In  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  the  evils  of  the 
existing  government  are  represented  so  strongly 
that  this  fact  has  been  urged  as  a  powerful 
argument  against  the  Solomonic  authorship  of 
the  book.  Archaeology  makes  it  evident  that 
these  evils  were  everywhere  inseparable  from  the 
oriental  system  of  government.  No  other  system 
was  known  to  the  period ;  had  Solomon,  in  his 
wisdom,  been  able  to  devise  a  better,  it  is  hardly 
possible  that  he  could  have  planted  it  among  his 
people  in  the  space  of  a  single  generation,  and 
it  is  more  than  doubtful  whether  his  luxurious 
character  would  have  allowed  him  to  attempt  it. 
The  evils  described  did  then  certainly  exist  under 
Solomon's  government,  and  to  his  mind,  being 
inseparable  from  all  government,  were  no  re- 
proach to  him.  There  was  therefore  no  reason 
why  he  should  not  speak  of  them  in  this  philo- 
sophical treatise,  nor  for  rejecting  the  traditional 
authorship  of  the  book. 

On  the  other  hand,  supposed  mistakes  in  arch- 
aeology have  sometimes  been  detected,  and  could 
they  have  been  substantiated,  would  certainly 
have  seriously  militated  against  the  received 
authorship  of   the  books  in  which  they  occur. 


THE  USE  OF  ARCHAEOLOGY.  'I'Al 

Thus  in  Gen.  xl.  9-11  the  vine  is  mentioned  as 
cultivated  in  Eg-yjit  for  wine.  But  Herodotus 
(ii.  77)  says  that  the  vine  was  unknown  in  an- 
cient Egypt  and  that  the  Egyptian  wines  were 
made  of  barley.  The  monuments  of  Egypt,  how- 
ever, show  that  the  vine  was  cultivated,  and  the 
art  of  making  wine  from  it  practiced,  from  the 
earliest  periods. 

So  also  the  authorship  of  Genesis  has  been 
called  in  question  from  the  assumption  of  igno- 
rance of  an  archaeological  fact  which  must  have 
been  known  to  the  Israelites.  In  Gen,  1.  2,  3  it 
is  said,  "  and  the  physicians  embalmed  Israel. 
And  forty  days  were  fulfilled  for  him  ;  for  so  are 
fulfilled  the  days  of  those  which  are  embalmed." 
The  Israelites  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of 
the  Egyptian  custom  of  embalming ;  but  as  they 
did  not  practice  it  among  themselves,  at  the 
end  of  forty  years  after  the  Exodus,  when  Moses 
must  have  revised  his  writings,  and  when  all 
who  had  lived  to  maturity  in  Egypt  were  dead, 
they  may  well  have  forgotten  about  the  time 
required,  and  so  have  needed  this  explanation. 
There  is  therefore  nothing  in  this  to  throw  any 
doubt  on  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  book. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

THE   tJSE   OF   NATURAL    SCIENCE. 

There  is,  perhaps,  no  other  knowledge,  out- 
side of  that  immediately  connected  with  his 
work,  of  more  importance  to  the  interpreter,  and 
yet  requiring  to  be  applied  with  so  much  dis- 
cretion as  the  knowled2:e  of  natural  science. 
The  interpreter  will  be  extremely  apt  to  involve 
himself  in  difficulties  and  error,  if  he  attempt 
to  bring  forward  imperfectly  understood  facts  or 
theories  of  science  in  the  explanation  of  partic- 
ular passages  of  Scripture ;  for  a  more  perfect 
knowledge  may  show  that  the  bearing  of  the 
fact  or  theory  of  science  has  been  misunder- 
stood, and  thus  not  only  is  he  left  in  a  some- 
what ridiculous  position,  but  also  the  impression 
is  produced  that  the  facts  which  have  failed  to 
help  in  the  explanation  are  really  in  some  sort 
of  antagonism  to  the  statements  of  the  text.  A 
noteworthy  instance  of  this  occurred  when,  in 
the  early  progress  of  geology,  fossils  were  dis- 
covered in  the  rocks  upon  mountain  heights,  and 
the  fact  was  at  once  claimed  as  indisputable 
proof  of  the  deluge.     To  be  sure,  the  counter 


THE  USE  OF  NATURAL  SCIENCE.       223 

claim  of  Voltaire  and  his  school,  that  they  were 
shells  dropped  by  the  returning  pilgrims  from 
the  holy  land,  was  still  more  ridiculous ;  but 
when,  in  the  progress  of  science  both  supposi- 
tions were  disproved,  and  it  was  found  that  these 
fossils  attained  their  present  position  by  the 
elevation  of  the  land,  and,  having  been  deposited 
in  extremely  remote  eras,  could  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  Noachian  deluge,  the  discomfiture 
of  Voltaire's  followers  was  a  matter  of  little 
consequence,  while  a  serious  impression  was 
produced  on  many  minds  that  the  Bible  re- 
quired for  its  support  unfounded  hypotheses. 

Nevertheless  a  knowledge  of  natural  science 
is  often  of  great  service,  both  in  enabling  us  to 
understand  facts  of  nature  which  underlie  much 
of  the  Scripture  story,  and  in  preventing  false 
interpretations  of  particular  passages,  and  some- 
times even  in  giving  us  important  help  in  their 
interpretation.  Such  facts  as  the  periodical 
rising  of  the  Nile  illustrate  all  that  part  of  the 
Bible  which  relates  to  Egypt ;  while  the  know- 
ledge of  the  geological  formation  of  the  greater 
part  of  Palestine,  as  a  dolomitic  limestone,  ac- 
counts at  once  for  the  extraordinary  fruitfulness 
of  the  soil  when  properly  irrigated,  and  also  for 
the  abundance  and  size  of  the  caves  of  which 
such  frequent  mention  is  mj^de  in  the  sacred 
narrative.     The  fact  that  the  course  of  the  Jor- 


224  THE  ART  OF  INTEBPEETING. 

dan  lies  in  a  deep  depression  produced  by  a 
geological  convulsion  in  some  unknown  era,  so 
that  even  the  Sea  of  Galilee  is  a  little  below, 
and  the  Dead  Sea  is  1,300  feet  below  the  level 
of  the  Mediterranean,  continually  illustrates 
the  history  of  the  life  of  Israel  and  explains  ap- 
parent anomalies  in  the  natural  productions  of 
the  country,  as,  e.  g.^  the  palm  at  Jericho.  The 
rugged  basaltic  plateau  in  the  "  land  of  Bashan," 
with  the  wide  stretches  of  pasture  lands  around 
it,  explains  how  Moses  could  have  found  so 
many  cities  grouped  in  so  small  a  space,  and 
could  have  conquered  so  many  in  so  short  a 
time.i  These  are,  indeed,  geographical  facts, 
but  facts  to  be  best  appreciated  with  some 
knowledge  of  geology. 

In  John  V.  2-7  occurs  the  account  of  the  im- 
potent man  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda.  Throwing 
out  the  last  clause  of  verse  3,  and  the  whole  of 
verse  4,  as  not  a  part  of  the  genuine  text,  we 
have  a  story,  which  needs  explanation,  of  a  mul- 
titude of  sick  folk  waiting  for  the  time  when  the 
water  should  be  moved.  Archseoloccical  investi- 
gation,  supplemented  by  some  knowledge  of  hy- 
draulics, shows  that  this  pool  was  probably  fed 
by  an  intermittent  spring,^  and  to  this  the  peo- 

^  See  Porter's  Giant  Cities  of  Bashan. 

2  See  Robinson's  Biblical  Researches,  vol.  i.,  pp.  499-508, 
especially  507,  508. 


THE  USE  OF  NATURAL  SCIENCE.       225 

pie  (whether  rightly  or  wrongly  the  text  does 
not  say)  attributed  therapeutic  virtue. 

The  breaking  up  of  the  golden  calf  in  the  wil- 
derness by  Moses  (Ex.  xxxii.  20),  has  already 
been  spoken  of  as  an  instance  in  which  chem- 
istry, by  showing  that  gold  with  a  small  per- 
centage of  certain  alloys  becomes  crystalline 
and  brittle,  and  that  the  Egyptians  used  such 
alloy  in  some  of  their  ornauients,  has  been  able 
to  relieve  the  narrative  of  what  once  seemed  an 
insuperable  difficulty. 

The  three  hours  of  noonday  darkness,  while 
our  Lord  hung  upon  the  cross  (Matt,  xxvii.  45  ; 
Mark  xv.  33 ;  Luke  xxiii.  44),  some  persons  once 
sought  to  explain  as  the  effect  of  an  eclipse ;  but, 
knowing  that  the  event  occurred  at  the  full 
moon  (being  on  the  15th  Nisan),  tbe  slightest 
knowledge  of  astronomy  shows  that  this  was  im- 
possible. 

Twice  in  the  Bible  miracles  are  recorded  by 
which  the  apparent  motion  of  the  sun  was  de- 
layed or  reversed :  the  miracle  of  Joshua  (Josh, 
x.  12-14),  and  the  going  back  of  the  shadow 
ten  degrees  on  the  sun-dial  of  Ahaz,  in  the  time 
of  Hezekiah  (2  Kings  xx.  9-11  j  Isa.  xxxviii.  8). 
It  was  once  sujoposed  that  these  miracles  might 
have  been  wrought  by  the  temporary  stoppage 
of  the  revolution  of  the  earth  on  its  axis  ;  but 
independently  of  other  and  sufficient  scientific 


226  THE  ART  OF  IN TEBP BETING. 

objections  to  this,  it  is  now  known,  by  calcula- 
tions from  the  records  of  ancient  eclipses,  that 
no  such  disturbance  of  time  can  have  occurred 
since  a  period  long  anterior  to  that  in  which 
these  miracles  were  wrought.  It  is  evident  that 
both  these  miracles  were  phenomenal ;  and  in 
regard  to  the  latter,  an  explanation  of  the  way 
in  which  it  was  wrought  can  be  easily  supplied 
by  the  supposition  of  a  slight  "  terrce  motus.^^ 

Natural  science  has  enabled  us  to  see  in  a 
striking  light  the  vast  superiority  of  the  cos- 
mogony in  Gen.  i.  to  that  of  any  other  which 
ever  appeared  among  the  nations,  and  even, 
from  its  general  truthfulness  in  regard  to  things 
far  beyond  the  human  knowledge  of  the  time, 
to  infer  with  at  least  a  high  degree  of  probabil- 
ity that  it  must  have  been  revealed. 

While  science  requires  a  more  careful  exami- 
nation of  the  evidence  by  which  the  Scriptural 
miracles  are  attested,  it  also  gives  to  them,  when 
sufficiently  proved,  an  apologetic  value  of  a 
much  higher  kind ;  for  it  shows  conclusively 
that  they  could  only  have  been  wrought  by  the 
intervention  of  a  higher  than  human  intelligence 
and  power,  and  were,  therefore,  not  mere  Tepdra, 
but  o-rjfxila,  in  the  highest  sense. 

But,  as  was  said  at  the  outset,  the  great  value 
of  scientific  knowledge  is  not  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  particular  texts,  but  in  the  analogies  it 


THE  USE  OF  NATURAL  SCIENCE.      227 

offers  to  revealed  truths,  and  especially  in  the 
better  understanding  to  be  obtained  of  the  ways 
of  God  from  the  study  of  His  works.  Revelation 
and  nature,  it  cannot  be  too  often  repeated,  are 
from  the  same  hand  and  are  mutually  illustra- 
tive of  one  another.  Without  the  knowledge  of 
nature  the  interpreter  is  constantly  liable  to  fall 
into  the  same  sort  of  errors  of  exegesis  as  those 
by  which  the  theology  of  the  church  was  for 
many  ages  disfigured,  until  corrected  by  advan- 
cing science.^ 

1  But  here  let  me  enter  a  caveat.  The  knowledge  of  sci- 
ence, if  genuine  and  true,  is  chiefly  important  in  its  effect 
upon  the  interpreter's  own  mind.  It  will,  indeed,  largely 
modify  his  expression,  but  there  is  seldom  occasion  to  speak  of 
it  directly.  It  is  much  worse  than  useless  to  affect  a  know- 
ledge which  one  does  not  have,  and  nowhere  is  ignorance  more 
conspicuous  than  in  dealing  with  a  subject  to  which  so  many 
advanced  specialists  are  devoted.  None  are  so  ready  to  lug 
in  science  by  the  heels  as  those  who  know  least  about  it ;  and 
their  use  of  it  is  likely  to  be  as  offensive  to  the  scientist  as  to 
the  theologian. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE   USE   OF    THE    OKIGINAL    LANGUAGES,    AND 
THE   IMMEDIATE   CONNECTION. 

The  two  subjects  here  placed  together  are 
sufficiently  easily  separated  in  theory,  but  prac- 
tically they  interlock  so  closely  that  it  has 
seemed  better  to  treat  them  toofether. 

Under  this  head  the  interpreter  comes  to  an 
essential  part  of  his  work,  and  one  requiring  the 
utmost  thoroughness.  Supposing  him  to  have 
already  become  familiar  with  the  required  lan- 
guages in  the  course  of  his  preparation,  he  has 
now  to  apply  his  knowledge  with  accuracy  and 
care  to  ascertain  exactly  what  the  writer  meant 
to  say  by  the  words  he  has  used  and  the  form 
into  which  he  has  thrown  them.  Res^ard  must 
first  of  all  be  had  to  the  genius  of  the  language, 
whether  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament  or 
the  Hellenistic  Greek  of  the  New.  With  this 
the  interpreter  must  be  supposed  to  be  already 
familiar.  It  is  a  knowledge  which  he  cannot 
acquire  for  the  first  time  in  the  examination  of 
any  particular  passage ;  but  in  which  he  must 
be  so  thoroughly  grounded   that   it  will,  even 


USE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    229 

without  any  especial  attention  to  it,  always  affect 
his  whole  work  of  translation.  Doubtless  he 
should  continue  to  the  last  to  grow  in  this  mat- 
ter ;  but  he  cannot  be  fitted  to  his  task  until  he 
has  made  some  good  progress  in  it. 

With  this  preparation,  the  general  sense  of 
any  particular  passage  will  become  obvious  to 
him  on  simply  reading  it  over.  Then,  when  he 
begins  to  study  it  more  carefully,  his  first  point 
is  to  ascertain  the  logical  connection ;  for  this 
will  often  seriously  modify  the  sense  of  particu- 
lar words  and  sometimes  of  larger  constructions. 
Thus  in  Rom.  ix.  13,  or  in  the  passage  from 
which  it  is  quoted,  Mai.  i.  2,  3,  a  knowledge  of 
the  Hebrew  idiom  shows  that  when  God  is  rep- 
resented as  saying  "Jacob  have  I  loved,  but 
Esau  have  I  hated,"  the  word  "hated  "  is  not  to 
be  taken  in  that  absolute  sense  which  the  ifxto-rjcra 
or  the  '^nwptt?  taken  alone,  might  bear ;  but  is  a 
relative  term,  a  term  of  comparison,  standing 
over  against  the  y^yd-n-qo-a  and  to  be  understood 
in  connection  therewith.^  Familiar  instances  of 
similar  usage  are  in  John  xii.  25,  where  the 
^tcra)v  is  in  contrast  with  (faXwv,  and  where  not 
only  no  one  would  think  of  understanding  the 
/xLo-Civ  of  an  absolute  hatred  of  one's  life,  but 
where  such  hatred  would  be  clearly  opposed  to 

^  For  the  opposite  view  see  Meyer,  and  also  Alf ord,  in  Rom. 
ix.  13. 


230  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

God's  will.  Another  instance  is  Luke  xiv.  26, 
where  the  contrast  is  not  expressed,  but  only 
implied  in  the  love  necessary  eaat  jxov  fxaOr]Trj<i ; 
here  the  absolute  hatred  of  all  earthly  relations, 
as  well  as  of  one's  own  life,  would  contradict  all 
Christian  teaching  as  well  as  the  example  of  our 
Lord  Himself.  Again,  in  Luke  x.  20,  rejoicing 
in  the  subjection  of  the  spirits  is  only  relatively 
forbidden,  and  in  verse  21  the  thanks  are  given 
not  that  "  these  things  are  hidden  "  from  any  one, 
but  only  that  they  are  revealed  to  babes  rather 
than  to  the  wise.  This  being  understood  in 
regard  to  the  sense  of  the  c/xto-T^o-a  from  a  general 
knowledge  of  the  language,  the  next  point  to  be 
noted  is  the  logical  connection.  In  Rom.  ix.  it 
is  evident  that  the  subject  treated  is  the  (par- 
tial) rejection  of  the  Israelites  and  the  calling 
of  the  Gentiles  ;  and  in  the  passage  in  Mai.  i. 
2-4,  the  reference,  in  the  same  way,  is  to  the 
nations  descended  from  Jacob  and  Esau.  How- 
ever the  progenitors  may  be  considered  as  con- 
nected with  their  descendants,  the  subject,  in 
either  place,  is  the  descendants,  viewed  as 
nations.  The  sense  of  the  whole  passage  then  is, 
that  in  the  setting  aside  the  mass  of  the  Israelites 
and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  there  is  nothing 
new  or  strange,  for  all  along  God  has  set  aside 
a  large  part  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  as  in  the 
case  of  Esau,  and  fulfilled  His  promises  only  to 
a  remnant. 


USE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    231 

The  general  context  as  bearing  upon  the 
grammatical  interpretation  having  thus  been 
considered,  the  interpreter's  next  care  must  be 
with  the  immediate  context  and  with  the  gram- 
matical structure  of  the  passage  before  him. 
The  meaning  of  a  sentence  may  easily  be  misap- 
prehended, sometimes  even  reversed,  if  this  be 
not  rightly  understood. 

A  great  deal  of  doctrinal  statement  has  been 
made  to  rest  on  Eom.  xiv.  23,  "  Whatsoever  is 
not  of  faith  is  sin,"  which  is  deprived  of  all 
support  from  this  passage  by  simj^ly  observing 
the  connection ;  for  the  ovk  ck  Trto-recos  is  evi- 
dently not  used  here  in  the  special  sense  of  faith 
in  Christ,  but  in  contrast  to  the  6  StaKptvofjievo^. 
The  meaning  of  the  passage  in  its  connection  is, 
that  he  who  does  anything  of  the  rightfulness  of 
which  he  is  in  doubt  is  condemned,  because  he 
violates  his  conscience ;  for  whatever  is  done 
without  a  clear  conviction  of  its  right  is  sinful. 

The  A.  V.  (and  also  the  revisers)  translate 
the  last  clause  of  1  John  v.  20,  "This  is  the 
true  God  and  eternal  life,"  where  the  antecedent 
of  this  is  ambiguous,  but  with  a  presumption 
that  it  refers  to  the  truth  enunciated  in  the 
earlier  part  of  the  verse ;  but  on  turning  to  the 
grammatical  structure  of  the  original  it  is  plain 
that  the  antecedent  of  ovro^  is  joersonal ;  but 
whether  it  refers  to  Oeo^,  the  main  subject  of  the 


232  THE  ART  OF  INTEEPRETING. 

passage,  or  to  'Irjaov  Xpia-Tw,  the  immediate  ante- 
cedent, is  disputed  among  commentators,  and 
must  be  determined  by  the  logical  connection. 

In  Mark  xvi.  4  the  particle  for  (ydp)  is  often 
misunderstood.  Attention  to  the  connection 
shows  that  it  refers  to  the  question,  "Who  shall 
roll  us  away  the  stone  ?"  and  not  to  the  immedi- 
ately preceding  clause,  "  they  saw  that  the  stone 
was  rolled  away."  Here  the  logical  connection 
prevails  over  the  grammatical. 

Many  passages  are  made  clear  by  a  know- 
ledge of  the  fact  that  the  third  person  plural  of 
the  verb  (active  or  middle)  is  often  used  imper- 
sonally, in  the  same  sense  as  the  third  person 
singular  of  the  passive.  An  instance  in  which 
our  translators  have  recognized  this  usage  is 
Luke  xii.  20,  "  this  night  thy  soul  shall  be  re- 
quired of  thee  ;  "  lit.,  "  they  shall  require  ;  " 
another  instance  in  which  they  have  failed  to 
recognize  it,  and  the  failure  has  led  to  much 
difficulty  of  interpretation,  occurs  in  the  same 
gospel,  xvi.  9  :  "  Make  to  yourselves  friends  of 
the  mammon  of  unrighteousness ;  that  when  ye 
fail,  they  may  receive  you  into  everlasting  habi- 
tations." This  is  often  understood  as  if  the 
nominative  to  Si^wvraL  were  either  c^tAot  or  fxafXMva 
taken  in  a  collective  sense ;  really  it  is  imper- 
sonal and  the  sense  is,  "  so  use  the  riches 
entrusted  to  you  that  they  may    become   your 


USE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    233 

friends,  and  in  view  of  your  faitM alness  ye  may 
he  recewed^^''  etc. 

Heb.  xii.  1  presents  a  case  both  of  tbe  impor- 
tance of  the  grammatical  connection,  and  of 
attention  to  the  meaning  of  words.  Chapter  xi. 
has  recounted  a  long  list  of  the  heroes  of  faith, 
and  there,  in  xii.  1,  these  are  spoken  of  as  a  vast 
cloud  of  fxaprvpwv  "  compassing  us  about."  The 
word  fjiapTvp  is  anglicized  martyr  in  just  its  orig- 
inal sense,  and  hence  the  meaning  is  not,  that 
we  have  many  witnesses  of  our  Christian  course  ; 
but  that  we  run  in  the  midst  of  a  vast  army  who 
by  faith  have  already  won  the  crown.  The 
stimulus  proposed  is  not  their  seeing  us,  but 
their  faithful  example  under  great  trials,  all 
culminating  in  the  example  of  the  dpx^yos  and 
TeAetcoTT^?  of  the  faith,  Jesus.  This  sense  is  ob- 
scured in  the  A.  V.  both  by  the  obsolete  trans- 
lation witnesses,  and  also  by  the  unfortunate 
division  of  the  chapters. 

Only  by  careful  attention  to  the  connection 
can  the  distinction  of  meaning  be  observed  in 
the  parallel  verses,  John  v.  25  and  29.  In  the 
former  the  reference  is  to  the  spiritually,  in  the 
latter  to  the  literally,  dead.  The  fact  that  the 
last  shall  certainly  be  raised  to  life  is  made  a 
reason  why  we  should  not  wonder  that  the  first 
shall  be  spiritually  quickened. 

After   our   Lord's   discourse   concerning   the 


234  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING, 

bread  of  life,  at  Capernaum,  many  of  his  disci- 
ples murmured  and  said,  "  This  is  an  hard  say- 
ing ;  who  can  hear  it?"  (John  vi.  60).  The 
question  has  been  hotly  discussed  whether  this 
"  hard  saying "  was  Christ's  requirement  that 
they  should  eat  His  flesh  and  drink  His  blood 
(vs.  53-56)  literally  understood,  or  whether  it 
was  trusting  in  Him  as  the  essential  and  suffi- 
cient condition  of  salvation,  which  is  certainly 
the  leading  thought  of  the  discourse,  and  was 
the  thing  which  offended  them  so  much  in  ver- 
ses 41,  42.  To  determine  this,  a  consideration 
of  the  context  is  essential.  In  verses  61,  62  our 
Lord  asks,  "  Doth  this  offend  you  ?  What  and 
if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  up  where 
He  was  before  ?  "  There  is  nothing  apparent  in 
this  to  remove  the  difficulty  about  eating  flesh 
and  drinking  blood ;  because  there  is  no  congru- 
ity  between  the  two  things,  and  nothing  in  the 
one  to  show  the  possibility  of  the  other.  But 
His  ascension  would  be  an  unanswerable  argu- 
ment to  the  objection  that  He  was  making  too 
much  of  Himself  as  the  central  point  of  man's 
salvation.  We  must  conclude,  therefore,  from 
the  answer,  that  this  was  the  gist  of  the  objec- 
tion. 

Sometimes  a  want  of  familiarity  with  the 
grammatical  constructions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  scribes  who  copied  its 


USE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    235 

MSS.,  in  later  ages,  has  led  to  unfounded  and 
even  unfortunate  changes  of  the  text  which 
have  passed  into  the  Tcxtus  Iteceptus.,  and  thus 
into  the  A.  V.  One  of  these,  of  great  impor- 
tance from  a  chronological  point  of  view,  is  in 
Acts  xiii.  20  where  the  words  koI  /xera  ravra  have 
been  transferred  from  their  proper  place  after 

<L?   crecrt   rerpaKocrtots    koI  -rrevTrjKOVTa    to   a    position 

before  them  where  they  do  not  belong.  The 
effect  of  this  is  to  give  an  erroneous  statement 
of  the  length  of  the  period  of  the  Judges,  instead 
of  a  correct  one  of  the  time  from  the  promise  to 
Abraham  to  the  division  of  the  land  among  his 
descendants. 

Another  instance  is  in  the  uncalled  for  inser- 
tion of  the  word  dia^tojs  in  1  Cor.  xi.  29.  The 
scribes  did  not  understand  that  /x^  in  the  sen- 
tence   6  yap  iaOioJV  /cat  iTLVoyv   Kpifxa  iavT(2  iaOUi  kol 

TTtVct,  fxr]  StaKpLvoiv  TO  orw/xa,  means  if  not ;  but  tak- 
ing it  in  the  sense  of  the  simple  negative  ov,  felt 
compelled  to  insert  the  explanatory  dva^tw?. 

One  of  the  words  the  construction  of  which  in 
the  New  Testament  requires  to  be  carefully 
noted,  because  it  varies  from  that  of  classic 
Greek,  is  the  particle  tva.  A  discussion  of  this 
word  here  would  occupy  quite  too  large  a  space, 
and  reference  only  can  be  made  to  the  gram- 
mars of  the  New  Testament,  es]3ecially  to  the 
admirable   treatment   of    the   subject   in   Butt- 


236  THE  AEl  OF  INTERPBETING. 

rnann.^  Suffice  it  to  say  that  it  has  become 
greatly  modified  from  its  original  strong  illative 
force,  and  that  this  fact  materially  affects  the 
interpretation  of  many  passages. 

In  the  Old  Testament,  attention  to  the  gram- 
matical connection  is  even  more  imperatively 
necessary  than  in  the  New,  because  the  lan- 
guage is  far  less  rich  in  inflections,  and  the  con- 
struction is  often  only  made  out  by  means  of 
the  connection.  Thus  the  tenses  of  the  verbs, 
other  than  that  of  the  leading  verb  of  the  para- 
graph, are  usually  dependent  upon  their  connec- 
tion, and  the  sense  would  often  be  changed  to 
nonsense  were  this  neglected.  In  the  very  first 
chapter  of  the  Bible .  the  subsequent  verbs  con- 
nected by  the  1  are  determined  in  their  temporal 
signification  by  the  S"iS  of  verse  1  and  by  the 
other  perfects  in  the  chapter.  Moreover,  the 
narrative  of  that  chapter  continues  through 
three  verses  of  the  next ;  while  at  Gen.  ii.  4  a 
fresh  narrative  begins,  undoubtedly  originally  a 
different  document,  giving  an  account  of  the 
creation  from  a  different  point  of  view.^ 

1  A  Grammar  of  the  N.  T.  Greek,  by  A.  Buttmann,  author- 
ized translation,  by  J.  Henry  Thayer. 

2  [This  may  be  the  best  place  to  note  that  the  connection  is 
often  obscured  by  the  unfortunate  division  of  the  chapters. 
Thus  Gen.  xxvii.  4()  mentions  the  stratagem  of  Rebecca  to 
remove  her  favorite  Jacob  out  of  the  way  of  Esau's  revenge  ; 
while  the  following  verses,  assigned  to  chapter  xxviii.,  give  the 


USE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    237 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  sensitiveness 
of  the  Hebrew  and  of  the  Aryan  languages  to 
the  grammatical  proprieties  is  shown  in  different 
ways.  Thus  in  Hebrew  the  agreements  of  gen- 
der and  number  are  not  seldom  violated,  feminine 
nouns  being  nominative  to  masculine  verbs,  and 
vice  versa^  and  the  singular  and  plural  being 
construed  together  without  any  obvious  reason. 
Sometimes  it  is  possible  in  these  cases  to  sup- 
pose a  corruption  of  the  text,  as  in  1  Chron.  ii. 
46,  48,  where  the  verb  ib^,  to  hear,  is  construed 
with  the  names  of  two  of  Caleb's  concubines  first 
in  the  feminine,  then  in  the  masculine,  and  then 

story  of  Isaac's  sending  him  away  in  consequence.  Ex.  vi.  1 
is  the  Divine  answer  to  Moses'  complaint  in  v.  22,  23,  and 
must  be  taken  in  connection  with  it.  Ex.  vii.  1,  2,  in  the 
same  way,  is  God's  answer  to  the  objection  of  Moses  that  he 
was  "  of  uncircumcised  lips."  The  appointment  of  the  Le- 
vites,  Num.  xviii.  1-7,  by  the  same  faulty  division  of  the  chap- 
ters, is  separated  from  its  immediate  occasion,  in  the  murmur- 
ing of  the  people  because  holier  duties  were  required  of  them 
than  they  were  competent  to  fulfill  (xvii.  12,  13).  In  Deut. 
xxix.  the  first  verse  refers  back  and  forms  the  conclusion  of 
the  address  which  ends  here ;  this  verse,  therefore,  belongs 
with  chap,  xxviii.,  and  does  not  form  the  heading  to  the  fresh 
discourse  which  begins  with  xxix.  2.  These  instances  have 
all  been  selected  from  the  Pentateuch ;  similar  ones  may  eas- 
ily be  found  in  almost  any  of  the  other  books.  As  a  single 
example  may  be  mentioned  the  introduction  of  a  fourth  chap- 
ter in  the  book  of  Malachi ;  this  division,  which  has  been 
introduced  from  the  LXX.  and  the  Vulgate,  but  does  not 
exist  in  the  Hebrew,  sadly  mars  the  unity  of  this  great  final 
prophecy  of  the  old  dispensation.] 


238  THE  ART  OF  INTEBPRETING. 

again  in  the  feminine.  But  often  sucli  a  sup- 
position is  inadmissible,  as  Isa.  xxxii.  11,  ^■-[^•n 
niSDStr,  ''tremble  ye  careless  women  "  ;  of.  Gen. 
xiii.  6,  Psalms  cxix.  155,  Judg.  xiii.  12,  etc. 
Sometimes  both  number  and  gender  are  wrong 
at  once,  as  1  Kings  xi.  3,  □'>tt73  "iV*»n''.l,  "and 
there  were  to  him  wives  " ;  cf .  Psalms  Ivii.  2, 
Mic.  ii.  6,  etc. 

Yet  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  from  this  circum- 
stance that  Hebrew  grammar  was  in  general  a 
loose  and  uncertain  thing ;  on  the  contrary,  it  had 
its  fixed  laws,  and  these,  when  applicable,  must 
determine  interpretation  absolutely,  as  may  be 
seen  on  looking  into  any  good  modern  commen- 
tary. Thus,  in  Isa.  viii.  21,  the  Hebrew  will  not 
allow  the  translation  of  the  A.  V.,  "  curse  their 
king  and  their  God  ;  "  for  regard  must  be  had 
to  the  prepositions  in  Vnbsn^  "i^^P??  which  re- 
quire the  translation  "by  its  king  and  its  God."  ^ 
In  1  Kings  vi.  15-18  there  are  two  instances  of 
the  same  misunderstanding  of  the  grammatical 
construction  by  the  translators  of  the  A.  V., 
which  materially  affect  the  idea  of  the  structure 
of  the  temple.  In  verse  15  it  is  said,  that  Solo- 
mon "  built  the  walls  of  the  house  within  with 
boards  of  cedar,  both  the  floor  of  the  house,  and 
the  walls  of  the  ceiling ;  "  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  said,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  same 
verse,  that  he  "covered  the  floor  of  the  house 

\}  See  Rev.  Ver.,  Isa.  viii.  21.] 


USE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    239 

with  planks  of  fir."  Here  appears  a  plain  con- 
tradiction within  the  limits  of  a  single  verse. 
Again,  in  verse  16  it  is  said,  that  "he  built 
twenty  cubits  on  the  sides  of  the  house,  both  the 
floor  and  the  walls  with  boards  of  cedar."  This 
is  sufficiently  unintelligible  in  itself;  but  in 
verse  18  we  are  told,  "  there  was  no  stone  seen," 
and  in  verse  2,  that  the  height  of  the  house  was 
"  thirty  cubits ; "  the  question  at  once  occurs, 
how  could  a  cedar  ceiling  of  twenty  cubits  cover 
uj)  a  wall  of  thirty  cubits  so  that  no  stone  should 
be  seen  ?  The  difficulty  is  at  once  removed  by 
an  examination  of  the  Hebrew,  which  at  the 
same  time  brings  out  an  often  unobserved  feature 
in  the  structure  of  the  temple.  The  expression, 
"  both  the  floor  .  .  .  and  the  walls "  in  each 
case  is  in  Hebrew  nin^p'lV  .  .  .  ri^'pjv?^  (except 
that  in  the  second  case  the  article  is  placed  be- 
fore each  of  the  nouns,  and  that  in  verse  16  the 
words  "  of  the  ceiling  "  are  to  be  supplied  from 
verse  15).  Now  there  is  but  one  possible  way  of 
translating  this  grammatically :  he  built  from 
the  floor  of  the  house  unto  the  walls  of  the  ceil- 
ing, i.  e.,  he  covered  the  whole  side  walls  from 
floor  to  ceiling  with  cedar  so  that  the  stone  was 
entirely  concealed.  As  the  height  of  this  was 
twenty  cubits,  while  the  exterior  height  was 
thirty  cubits,  it  follows  that  there  was  a  differ- 
ence of  ten  cubits  between  the  exterior  and  the 


240  THE  ART  OF  INTERPBETING. 

interior  heiglit.  This  may  have  been  taken  up 
either,  as  Fergusson  thinks,  by  the  slope  of  the 
roof  ;  ^  or,  if  the  roof  was  flat  after  the  analogy 
of  all  oriental  architecture,  there  was  a  room 
above.  But  instances  of  the  need  of  attention 
to  the  grammatical  structure  need  not  be  mul- 
tiplied either  for  the  Hebrew  or  the  Greek ;  it 
is  an  obvious  requirement  in  the  translation  of 
any  language. 

The  older  interpreters  were  more  often  in 
fault  in  not  observing  the  exact  grammatical 
form  of  particular  words,  and  it  is  in  this  point 
that  modern  exegesis,  though  sometimes  pushed 
too  far,  has  made  some  of  its  chief  advances. 
Here  again  the  Hebrew  forms  often  require  to 
be  helped  out  by  the  context,  on  account  of  the 
poverty  of  that  language  in  inflections.  Thus 
the  so-called  perfect  tense  has  to  do  duty  both 
as  a  Greek  aorist  in  simple  narration,  in  such 
passages  as  Gen.  iii.  16,  ni^W  =  he  said,  and  as 
a  Greek  perfect,  denoting  an  action  with  con- 
sequences continuing  to  the  time  of  the  speaker 
or  writer,  as  in  Gen.  xxxii.  11,  "^n^'^n  =  /  have 
become  two  bands.  So  also  the  other,  or  im- 
perfect, tense,  is  used  to  express  a  variety  not 
only  of  temporal  but  also  of  modal  significa- 
tions. The  use  and  the  meaning  of  these  tenses, 
in  their  various  connections,  is  a  serious  study, 

1  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  article  Temple. 


USE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    241 

and  although  grammarians  have  undoubtedly 
insisted  far  too  much,  both  here  and  in  Greek, 
upon  a  nicety  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  other 
writers  and  in  other  languages,  yet  the  inter- 
preter cannot  afford  to  neglect  their  normal 
value,  which  he  will  find  to  be  also  their  actual 
value  wherever  emphasis  is  placed  upon  them. 
Thus,  in  such  a  passage  as  Acts  xix.  6,  one  can- 
not fail  to  see  that  the  imperfects  iXdXow  and 
i7rpo(l)rJT€vov  forbid  the  idea  that  the  gifts  of 
tongues  and  prophecy  were  only  momentary, 
and  they  show  that  the  newly  baptized  were 
accustomed  to  exercise  them.^  So,  too,  while  the 
aorist  may  be  interchanged  with  the  imperfect 
or  the  perfect  in  various  places  in  which  no 
especial  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  the  one  or  the 
other  (as  rjvSoKrjaa  in  Matt.  iii.  17  ;  iKaBtaav,  xxiii. 

2  ;   ovK    a(firjK€,  John  viii.  29  ;    ovSels   .    .   .   ifxtcrrja-a', 

Eph.  V.  29,  etc.),  and  where  only  an  excessive 
grammatical  subtlety  can  give  the  tense  its 
appropriate  meaning ;  yet,  usually,  it  has  the  dis- 
tinct force  of  accomplishment  which  is  not  to  be 
neglected  in  interpretation.  Thus  in  Luke  xvii. 
8  the  €0)?  c^ayco  kol  ttlw  is  quite  correctly  rendered 
in  the  A.  V.,  "  Till  I  have  eaten  and  drunken  ;  " 
and  the  distinction  between  the  aorist  and  im- 
perfect is  finely  marked  in  Luke  viii.  23,  ttXcoV- 

TOiv  8e    avTU)v    a(f>v7Tv<ji(T€'    kol   KaTejSr]  AatAai/^  €ts  riyv 
[1  Possibly  the  imperfect  has  here  its  inceptive  force.] 


242  THE  ABT  OF  INTEBPRETING. 

Xifxvrjv,   KoX   avv€-n-XrjpovvTO   kol   iKLvSvvevov,  where  the 

A.  V.  fails  to  preserve  the  distinction.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  essential  idea  of  the  present 
(except  as  modified  in  the  indicative  by  the  idea 
of  actual  present  time)  and  of  the  imperfect  is 
"  action  as  a  matter  of  process,"  and  this  idea 
should  often  control  the  interpretation.  Thus 
in  Matt.  xxv.  8,  o-jSivvvvTat  does  not  indicate  that 
the  lamps  "  are  gone  out  "  (A.  V.),  but  that 
they  burn  dimly  and  are  just  going  out.  James 
iii.  18,  the  cnrapeTat  shows  that  the  future  har- 
vest of  righteousness  is  now  having  its  seed 
sown  in  peace  by  those  that  make  peace.  It  is 
particularly  important  to  bear  in  mind  this 
sense  of  a  continuing  process  in  passages  where, 
by  neglecting  it,  a  doctrinal  significance  has 
been  imagined  which  does  not  really  exist ;  as  in 
Acts  ii.  47,  where  the  crw^o/xeVous  marks,  not  those 
who  have  already  been,  but  those  who  are  in 
process  of  being,  saved.     So  also  in  1  John  v. 

18,  TTct?  6  yeyevvrjfxei'os  Ik  rov  Ocov  ov^  afxapTdvei. 
Sometimes  this  process  is  shown  by  the  circum- 
stances to  be  incomplete,  and  then  becomes  sim- 
ply "  procedure  towards  an  action,"  as  in  Luke 

i.  59,  eKaXovv  avTO  •  .  .  Za^^aptav ;  Matt.  iii.  14, 
6  Se  *lo)dvvr]<;   8l€K(x)\v€V  avrov  ;    Heb.  xi.    17,    kol  tov 

fxovoyevrj  7rpo(T€cf>€pev.  Yet  it  would  be  quite  idle 
to  say  that  this  idea  of  process  is  to  be  seen 
in  every  instance  of  Xiywv  or  IXeye  that  occurs. 


USE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    243 

So  also  the  aorist  is  often  finely  distinguished 
from  the  perfect,  and  the  interpreter  must  have 
regard  to  the  distinction,  as  in  Col.  i.  16,  iv  aurw 

iKTLcrOrj  TCL  irdvTa  .  .  .  Ta  travTa  8t'  amov  koI  ch  avTov 
eKTiaraL  ;    1  John  i.  2,  r)  t,^y\   i<f>av€po)dYj,   kol   ioipaKa- 

jx€i'  KOL  fxapTvpovfxev.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  per- 
fects are  used  for  aorists,  and  aorists  for  per- 
fects. In  addition  to  instances  of  the  latter 
already  given   may  be  mentioned  Heb.  viii.  1, 

€)^OfJiev  ap-^tepia  os  iKaOtaiv  iv  Se^ta,  k.  t.  A.,  and  Mark 

iii.  21,  e^iar-q.  Of  its  usc  for  the  pluperfect, 
even  in  a  leading  clause.  Matt.  xiv.  3  and  Mark 
vi.  17  may  suffice;  for,  however  this  may  be 
explained  by  supposing  the  writer  to  have  trans- 
ferred himself  in  thought  as  a  narrator  to  a  past 
time,  yet,  as  we  read  the  narrative,  the  sense 
expressed  by  the  aorist  is  pluperfect. 

The  attempt  has  been  sometimes  made  to  find 
evidence  for  important  doctrinal  statements  on 
the  use  of  the  aorist,  which  it  is  impossible  to  sus- 
tain in  view  of  the  laxity  of  the  New  Testament 
usage.  Thus  the  prayer  of  Paul  for  Onesiphorus, 
in  2  Tim.  i.  18,  has  been  brought  forward  as  a 
justification  of  prayers  for  the  dead  on  the  sup- 
position that  Onesiphorus  could  not  have  been 
living  at  the  time,  and  that  supposition  is  based 
upon  the  use  of  the  aorists  in  verses  16,  17.  It 
is  certainly  clear  from  this  passage,  and  from  2 
Tim.  iv.  19,  that  he  was  not  at  the  time  with  "  his 


244  THE  ART  OF  INTEEPEETING. 

household."  He  may  have  been  absent  some- 
where else,  or  he  may  have  been,  as  Chrysostom 
and  Theodoret  suppose,  with  Paul  at  Rome. 
Altogether  forgetting  the  former  possibility,  it 
has  been  urged  against  the  latter  ^  that  it  is  in- 
consistent with  the  aorists  aviif/v^ev,  iTraio-xvvOrjy 
and  it,-^Tr}(T€v,  especially  in  connection  with  the 
yevo/xevos  ii^  'Fmjjlt)  of  verse  17.  But,  indepen- 
dently of  the  fact  that  the  Greek  writers,  Chrys- 
ostom and  Theodoret,  did  not  feel  this  difficulty, 
it  is  completely  met  by  the  fact  that,  in  the  case 
of  Stephanas  and  his  household,  Paul  speaks  in 
the  same  way  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  15-18.  Stephanas 
was  certainly  with  him  at  the  time  (verse  17), 
and  his  household  was  certainly  living  (verse 
15) ;  yet  in  regard  to  both  he  uses  the  aorists 
iTa^av,   aveTrX-^poicrev,    and    aveTvavcrav.      It    is    plain 

that  he  does  not  use  the  aorist  with  sufficient 
nicety  to  allow  of  the  proposed  inference. 

The  general  conclusion  on  the  whole  subject 
of  the  use  of  the  tenses  is  this  :  It  is  insufficient 
to  show  that  the  tense  used  has,  on  strictly  gram- 
matical considerations,  always  a  certain  force  ; 
it  must  also  appear  that  the  attention  of  the 
writer  was  sufficiently  drawn  to  the  tense  to  use 
it  in  its  normal  sense.  Otherwise,  within  obvi- 
ous limits,  he  may  have  used  it  without  any 
especial  care,  as  is  continually  done  by  popular 

1  See,  e.  g.,  Alford  in  loco. 


USJE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    245 

writers,  in  all  languages.  The  two  cases  can 
generally  be  well  enough  distinguished  by  ob- 
serving whether  the  tense  actually  used  yields 
any  especially  appropriate  sense  in  its  connec- 
tion;  if  so,  the  presumption  is  that  the  writer 
intended  exactly  that  sense,  but  even  this  must 
be  checked  by  his  use  of  it  elsewhere  under 
similar  circumstances. 

Essentially  the  same  things  may  be  said  of 
the  tenses  in  Hebrew,  with  the  proviso  already 
made,  that  this  language  being  far  less  rich  in 
inflections,  the  exact  meaning  intended  must 
often  be  otherwise  determined.  The  temporal 
and  modal  distinctions  of  perfect,  imperfect,  and 
participle  are  sometimes  quite  obliterated,  as  in 
Lev.  xi.  4-6,  where  the  three  are  used  (np~i5, 
D*'"^'rr  D**"^!^^)  interchangeably,  in  reference  to 
the  same  distinction  among  the  animals,  while 
another  corresponding  distinction  is  expressed 
throughout  (n^l7n)  by  the  same  form.  Yet, 
as  in  the  Greek,  the  distinctions  of  the  tenses 
are  observed  whenever  they  are  significant  and 
require  to  be  carefully  noted  by  the  interpreter. 
After  giving  so  much  space  to  the  Greek  tenses 
it  is  impossible  to  enter  further  here  into  this 
delicate  and  difficult  subject,  and  the  reader 
must  be  referred  to  the  standard  grammatical 
treatises.^ 

1  Especial  reference  should  be  made  to  the  elaborate  little 


246  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

Finally,  the  exegete,  having  determined  the 
connection  and  the  grammatical  construction, 
must  fix  upon  the  precise  meaning  of  the  indi- 
vidual v/ords.  In  all  languages  there  are  many 
words  used  in  somewhat  different  senses.  There 
are  not  only  primitive  and  derivative  meanings, 
as  in  the  familiar  English  word  post,  but  there 
are  also  often  nice  shades  of  difference  in  sense 
which  it  requires  no  little  care  to  discriminate. 
Thus  the  words  tt?p3  and  if/vxrj  require  careful  in- 
vestigation ;  for  while  the  former  varies  in  mean- 
ing from  the  dead  body  (as  in  Lev.  xxii.  4,  Hag. 
ii.  13,  etc.)  to  that  higher  nature  with  which 
man  is  to  love  and  serve  God  (as  in  Deut.  iv. 
25,  1  Kings  ii.  4),  and  most  commonly  expresses 
the  animal  life,  and  \lruxq  also  (in  contradistinc- 
tion to  TTvevixa  and  o-ap^)  means  the  same  animal 
life ;  yet  both  of  them  have  several  nicer  shades 
of  meaning  which  must  be  determined  by  the 
connection  in  which  they  are  used.  A  word,  too, 
may  have  a  twofold  sense,  and  yet  one  of  these 
senses  replace  the  other  chronologically,  or  at 
least  the  secondary  sense  only  come  into  use 
along  with  the  primary  after  the  latter  has  long 

book,  A  Treatise  on  the  Use  of  the  Tenses  in  Hebrew,  by  S.  R. 
Driver.  A  fund  of  information  and  scholarship  may  be  found 
in  this,  though  it  may  well  be  questioned  whether  the  author 
has  not  pushed  his  grammatical  hypotheses  sometimes  quite 
beyond  the  basis  of  his  evidence.  [Vide  also,  especially, 
Kautzsch's  new  edition  of  Gesenius  (1889).     Ed.] 


USE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    247 

stood  alone.  Thus  ns^n  means  both  sin  and  a 
sin  offering  ;  but  in  the  latter  sense  it  is  never 
found  before  the  technical  language  of  the  law 
in  Ex.  xxix.  14,  after  which,  both  senses  are  com- 
mon. Great  confusion  and  difficulty  has  arisen 
from  the  translation  of  the  similar  word  Dr;s 
in  Lev.  v.  6.  The  word  bears  the  two  meanings 
of  trespass  and  trespass  offering ;  but  here,  in 
a  section  (iv.  1-v.  13)  wholly  relating  to  the 
sin  offering  in  distinction  from  the  trespass  of- 
fering (which  follows  in  the  next  section  (v.  14- 
vi.  7)  )  it  must  be  rendered  tres^^ass.  In  this 
case  the  translators  were  probably  led  into  the 
error  by  the  corresponding  double  sense  of  a/xap- 
Tia  in  the  LXX.  The  word  iris  is  probably 
another  instance  of  a  primary  and  secondary 
signification.  The  common,  almost  universal, 
meaning  of  the  word  is  pi'iest ;  yet  since  origi- 
nally the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  headship  of  a 
people  were  vested  in  the  same  person,  it  came 
to  bear  also  the  sense  of  prince,  and  is  so  used 
a  few  times  in  Scripture,  as  in  2  Sam.  viii.  1 8  ; 
XX.  26  ;  1  Kings  iv.  5 ;  ^  and  perhaps  also  Ex. 
ii.  16,  iii.  1,  xviii.  1.  A  good  instance  in  He- 
brew of  a  word  with  very  different  derivative 
meanings  from  the  same  root  is  r|nti\  The 
root  signifies  to  burn,  and  hence  comes  to  be 

1  In  favor  of  tlie  sense  priest  in  these  places,  see  Gesenius, 
Thesaurus,  in  verbo. 


248  THE  ART  OF  INTEBPBETING. 

used  in  Num.  xxi.  8  for  an  exceedingly  venom- 
ous or  "  fiery "  serpent,  and  frequently  in  the 
prophets  for  an  exalted  order  of  beings  who  sur- 
round the  unutterable  glory  of  the  Majesty  on 
high.  It  is  true  that  Gesenius  ^  derives  the  latter 
from  another  root  of  the  same  form  ;  but  there  is 
no  evidence  of  the  existence  of  this  other  root, 
and  lexicographers  generally  consider  them  the 
same.  Abundant  further  examples  may  be  seen 
in  the  lexicons. 

Words  have  also  oftentimes  a  peculiar  sense 
in  Scripture,  different  from  that  attached  to 
them  in  profane  writings.  This  remark  applies 
only  to  the  New  Testament ;  for  it  is  only  here 
that  we  have  the  literature  which  can  serve  as  a 
means  of  comparison.  But  here  it  is  evident 
that  a  revelation  bringing  new  truths  and  new 
ideas  into  the  world  and  making  use  of  an  old 
language,  must  either  coin  new  words  altogether, 
as  has  often  been  done,  or  else  must  use  the 
old  words  in  a  somewhat  new  sense.  Familiar 
instances   of   this   are  Aoyo?,  ^iKaLocrvvr},  /SacnXeta 

(in   connection    wdth    rod  ©eov,  tojv   ovpavm'),  IkkXt]- 

cria,  7raXiyy€V€o-ta,  d^ao-racri?,  and  many  more.  But 
there  are  many  words  belonging  to  a  somewhat 
different  class  which  will  well  repay  the  careful 
attention  of  the  exegete.  In  James  i.  27  we 
read  according  to  the  A.  V.,  "  Pure  religion  and 

^  Thesaurus,  in  verbo. 


USE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    249 

iindefiled  before  God  and  the  Father  is  this,"  and 
the  inference  has  been  drawn  that  religion  not 
merely  requires,  but  itself  consists  in,  blameless- 
ness  of  life  and  the  active  duties  of  humanity ; 
but  the  word  for  "  religion "  is  OprjaKia^  and 
means  not  so  much  religion  in  itself,  as  in  its 
outward  expression  and  garb  —  what  is  techni- 
cally known  as  its  cidtiis.  The  true  meaning 
of  the  word  is  easily  learned  by  comparing  the 
passages  in  which  it  occurs :  in  Acts  xxvi.  5  it  is 
used  of  "  the  Jew's  religion  " ;  in  Col.  ii.  18  of  the 
cultus  of  angels  ;  in  James  i.  26,  in  immediate 
connection  with  the  text  and  in  the  same  sense, 
while  the  adjective  Oprjo-Ko?  is  also  used  in  the 
same  verse  with  a  similar  meaning.  The  Syriac 
version  has  correctly  apprehended  the  meaning. 
The  word  Trdaxa  is  used  in  the  New  Testament 
in  a  variety  of  significations.  (1)  For  the  pas- 
chal lamb  (Matt.  xxvi.  17  ;  Mark  xiv.  12,  14 ; 
Luke  xxii.  7,  11,  15,  and  metaphorically  1  Cor. 
V.  7  ;  but  in  this  sense  exclusively  it  is  not  cer- 
tain that  it  ever  occurs  in  John).  (2)  For  the 
paschal  supper  generally  (Matt.,  xxvi.  18,  19; 
Luke  xxii.  8,  13  ;  Heb.  xi.  28,  etc),  it  being- 
evident  that  these  two  closely  related  senses  are 
easily  interchanged.  (3)  For  the  whole  paschal 
festival  of  the  seven  days  of  unleavened  bread 
(Matt.  xxvi.  2 ;  Luke  ii.  41,  xxii.  1 ;  John  ii. 
23).     (4)  Indefinitely,  so  that  it  may  be  under- 


250  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

stood  either  as  in  2  or  as  in  3,  and  yet  more 
naturally  in  that  of  3  when  that  meaning  has 
once  been  established  (John  ii.  13 ;  vi.  4  ;  xi. 
55  ;  xii.  1  ;  xiii.  1).  In  John  xviii.  28,  xix.  14, 
the  meaning  has  long  been  in  dispute,  and  it  is 
important  to  the  chronology  of  our  Lord's  pas- 
sion, as  well  as  in  other  ways,  to  determine  the 
sense  in  these  passages.  It  will  be  observed 
that  all  the  other  passages  in  John  fall  under 
either  3  or  4,  and  that  all  under  4  are  in  John. 
Often  as  he  uses  the  word  there  is  no  instance, 
outside  of  the  passages  in  question,  in  which  he 
can  be  proved  to  use  it  in  any  narrower  sense 
than  that  of  the  whole  seven  days'  feast ;  the  pre- 
sumption is,  therefore,  that  he  so  uses  it  in  these 
cases  also.  But  the  meaning  in  both  these  cases 
is  definitely  settled  by  the  context.  In  xviii.  28 
the  Jews  would  not  enter  the  praetorium  "  lest 
they  should  be  defiled ;  but  that  they  might  eat 
the  irda-xa."  Now  we  know  from  the  law  that 
there  was  no  defilement  which  could  prevent  the 
eating  of  the  paschal  lamb  except  that  which 
arose  from  the  touch  of  a  dead  body  —  a  defile- 
ment lasting  for  seven  days  (Num.  ix.  6,  7,  11, 
13).  Except  for  this  and  for  absence  on  a  jour- 
ney, the  law  imperatively  required  every  Israelite 
to  partake  (Num.  ix.  10-14).  Entering  Pilate's 
prsetorium  would  not,  then,  have  prevented  their 
eating  the  paschal  lamb,  but  would  have  inter- 


USE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    251 

fered  with  their  joining  in  the  sacrificial  feasts  of 
the  following  days.  The  conclusion  is  then  clear 
that  this  must  have  been  after  the  paschal  supper 
(with  which  the  whole  feast  began),  and,  hence, 
that  Tracrxa  has  here  the  same  sense  as  generally 
in  this  Gospel. 

The  other  instance  (xix.  14)  depends  for  its 
determination  on  another  word  with  which  it  is 
connected,  rrapao-Kevr]  rov  Tracrxa,  which  requires  it- 
self to  be  determined.  Does  it  mean  the  Prepa- 
ration-day for  the  Passover,  in  which  case  it 
must  precede  it,  or  the  Preparation-day  of  the 
Passover,  in  which  case  it  occurred  during  the 
feast  ?  This  is  easily  seen.  The  day  preceding 
the  paschal  supper  is  always  expressed  in  other 
ways  (Matt.  xxvi.  17,  Trpwrrj  twv  at,vfx(xiv -,  Mark 
xiv.  12,  TTp.  Yjfxipa  T.  d^.  ;  Luke  xxii.  7,  y}i^€.pa  T.  d^.)  ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ordinary  term  for 
the  day  before  the  Sabbath  was  precisely  this 
Trapao-Kevr]  (Matt,  xxvii.  62  ;  Mark  xv.  42,  where 

it  is  defined  ;  Luke  xxiii.  54,  rjixipa  rjv  7rapaaKcvrj<;, 
Koi  crd(3l3aTOv  iirecfioja-Ke  ;  John  xix.  31,  42,  in  both 
which  the  sense  is  clear).  There  seems,  there- 
fore, no  reason  to  doubt  that  r]  TrapaaKevrj  Tov  Trdcrxa 
means  as  distinctly  the  day  before  the  Sabbath 
of  the  Passover  week  as  we  should  by  saying 
"  the  Friday  of  the  Passover." 

Good  illustrations  of  the  introduction  of  new 
words,  or  of  the  modification  in  sense  of  words 


252  THE  ABT  OF  INTERPRETING. 

already  in  use,  may  be  found  in  aydnrj  and  <^t\- 
aSeA^ta.  The  former  was  coined  for  use  in  tlie 
Septuagint,  and  thence  adopted  into  the  New 
Testament  and  used  in  a  much  higher  sense. 
In  the  latter,  according  to  Cremer,^  "  It  denotes 
the  love  which  chooses  its  object  with  decision 
of  will,  so  that  it  becomes  self-denying  or  com- 
passionate devotion  to  and  for  the  same."  Such 
a  word  in  such  a  sense  became  necessary  from 
the  elevation  given  in  the  New  Testament  to 
the  verb  aya-n-av,  and  from  the  word  thus  used 
came  the  technical  plural  dyaTrat  =^  love-beasts, 
which  were  practiced  among  the  early  Chris- 
tians. $iAaScA.(/)ia,  on  the  otJier  hand,  was  a 
word  already  in  use  in  classic  authors  for  famil}^ 
affection,  and  it  vxiight  seem  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament writers  should  have  used  ffyLXavOpw-n-ta ;  but 
this  would  have  fallen  far  below  the  sense  which 
they  intended  to  convey,  and  by  using  <^tA.a8e/\<^ta, 
when  a  classical  author  would  have  required  only 
cf)LXav6p(07ria,  they  exalted  the  affection  of  which 
they  spoke  to  a  height  of  which  classical  religion 
had  no  knowledge,  and  for  which  classical  lan- 
guage had  no  word. 

But  few  words  need  to  be  added  here  to  what 
has  already  been  said  of  the  usefulness  of  the 
study  of  the  Semitic  languages,  especially  the 

^  Cremer,  Biblico-theological  Lexicon  of  N.  T.  Greek.  Trans- 
lated from  the  2d  German  edition  by  W.  Urwick. 


USE  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.    253 

Syriac.  The  value  of  tliis  language  lies  particu- 
larly in  the  study  of  its  idioms  and  forms  of  ex- 
pression, which  both  supply  illustrations  for  the 
scanty  literature  of  the  Hebrew,  and  also  furnish, 
in  the  New  Testament,  examples  of  the  usage  in 
other  connections  of  phrases  with  which  we  are 
made  familiar  in  the  Gospels,  but  which  have  no 
corresponding  use  in  Greek. 

Thus  the  phrase  "  Son  of  man  "  is  met  with 
in  the  books  of  those  prophets  who,  during  the 
captivity  in  Babylon,  were  especially  exposed  to 
the  influence  of  Aramaic  expressions.  It  occurs 
once  in  Daniel,  but  with  such  frequency  (ninety- 
two  times)  in  Ezekiel  as  to  suggest  inquiry  as 
to  its  meaning.  In  Syriac,  JL*.j;.^  is  simply 
equivalent  to  man  and  is  constantly  so  used.  A 
striking  instance  of  this  is  1  Cor.  xv.  45  where  it 
is  applied  to  Adam  himself.  It  may  have  been 
for  this  reason  that  it  was  chosen  by  our  Lord 
for  His  own  distinctive  title. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE   USE   OF   TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

Sufficient  illustrations  of  the  way  in  which 
the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament  is  af- 
fected by  Textual  Criticism  have  already  been 
given.  It  is  obviously  waste  labor  to  undertake 
the  interpretation  of  any  passage  until  we  know 
what  the  passage  really  is.  The  interpreter 
should  therefore  always  have  before  him,  as  the 
basis  of  his  ^vork,  a  good  critical  text.  It  will 
be  far  better  if  this  is  supplemented  with  a  col- 
lection of  various  readings,  and  with  the  authori- 
ties for  them.  The  interpreter  is  not  often  to 
determine  the  text  for  himself;  only  in  cases 
where  the  authorities  are  somewhat  evenly  bal- 
anced, and  the  critical  editors  differ  in  their  con- 
clusions, can  the  exegete  safely  exercise  his  ow^n 
judgment  upon  the  text ;  but  it  often  happens 
that  various  readings,  while  not  of  sufficient 
w^eight  to  justify  an  alteration  of  the  text,  yet 
testify  to  an  early  understanding  of  its  meaning 
which  may  be  of  importance.  Thus  in  Luke  ii. 
forty-nine  various  meanings  might  be  given  to 
the  iv  TOLs  Tov  Trarpo?  jxov,  but,  as  early  as  the  Cure- 


THE  USE  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM.      255 

tonian  Syriac  (and  also  in  several  of  the  fa- 
thers), we  have  the  var.  led.  ^v  roi  oiVcu,  and,  while 
this  has  no  claim  to  be  received  as  the  true  text, 
it  has  thus  valuable  support  as  the  sense  which 
ought  to  be  given  to  the  text  as  it  stands.  In 
John  i.  18  the  text  is  fairly  doubtful  between 
6  fxovoyevr}^  vl6<s  and  /xovoyei/^s  ^eos,  and  although  on 
the  whole  the  preponderance  of  evidence  is  for 
the  former,^  yet  the  occurrence  of  the  latter  in 
the  earliest  and  best  MSS.  («,  B,  C*,  L,  33)  is  a 
weighty  testimony  of  antiquity  to  the  view  then 
held  of  the  character  of  the  vl6<;.  Something  the 
same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  readings  KvpCov 
and  Oeov  in  Acts  xx.  28,^  and  of  many  other  like 
passages.  The  interpreter  can  never  afford  to 
overlook  such  evidences  of  current  early  inter- 
pretations, while  he  may  be  satisfied  that  the 
text  itself  is  settled  beyond  reasonable  question. 
In  the  Old  Testament  the  interpreter  is  forced 
to  rely  much  more  upon  his  own  sagacity  in  the 
matter  of  textual  criticism,  and  that  especially 
in  regard  to  conjectural  emendations  of  the  text. 
The  versions  will  here  also  often  supply  inter- 
pretations, but  it  generally  remains  more  than 
doubtful,  on  the  one  hand,  whether  their  inter- 

1  See  article  by  Dr.  E.  Abbot  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  Oct., 
1861,  and  appendix  to  the  same  prepared  at  the  reque.st  of 
the  American  Committee  of  Biblical  Revision. 

2  See  article  by  the  same  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  April,  1876. 


256  THE  ART  OF  INTERPEETING. 

pretations,  differing  from  the  received  text,  did 
not  arise  from  a  misunderstanding  of  the  He- 
brew rather  than  from  a  difference  in  the  text, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  when  they  agree  with 
the  existing  text,  whether  it  may  not  have  be- 
come corrupted  long  before  they  were  made. 
Several  instances  of  probable  conjectural  emen- 
dation have  abeady  been  mentioned  in  a  former 
chapter ;  a  few  additional  ones  of  a  different 
character  may  here  be  cited.  In  Ezek.  i.  4  our 
version  reads,  "  a  whirlwind  came  out  of  the 
north ;  a  great  cloud,"  etc.,  where  we  are  struck 
with  the  abruptness  of  the  second  clause  which, 
as  it  stands,  has  no  finite  verb.  The  present 
Hebrew  is  nsn  nnrr^ ;  but  by  transferring  the 
final  n  of  the  first  word  to  the  beginning  of 
the  second  it  would  read  nsnn  n^D  =  a  w  hirl- 
wind  brought  a  great  cloud  out  of  the  north, 
etc.  Remembering  that  in  the  early  manu- 
scripts there  was  no  division  between  the  words, 
such  a  conjectural  emendation  seems  highly 
probable,  although  in  this  case  it  is  of  no  great 
importance  in  itself.  In  the  account  of  the 
Levite,  who  served  the  tribe  of  Dan  as  a  priest 
of  idolatry  at  Laish,  in  Judges  xviii.  30,  his 
name  is  given  as  "Jonathan,  the  son  of  Ger- 
shom,  the  son  of  Manasseh."  By  leaving  out 
the  D  from  the  last  word  and  chano^ins:  the  vowel 
pointing,  instead  of  7iwyf2  we  should  have  nWT2 


THE  USE  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM.      257 

=  Moses.  This  can  hardly  be  called  a  conjec- 
tural emendation,  since  not  only  do  some  of  the 
present  Hebrew  MSS.  read  Moses,  but  the  D  is 
marked  as  suspicious  by  being  placed  above  the 
line,  and  the  Talmud ists  acknowledge  that  it 
has  been  inserted  out  of  respect  to  Moses.  All 
the  ancient  versions,  however,  except  the  Vul- 
gate, read  Manasseh  ;  but  several  manuscripts 
of  the  Septuagint  have  Moses,  and  this  was 
placed  as  a  correction  in  Origen's  Hexapla. 
Moses  had  a  son  Gershom  (Ex.  ii.  22),  but  no 
such  name  is  recorded  as  among  the  sons  of 
Manasseh. 

In  Ezek.  iii.  15  the  present  Hebrew  text  has 
ntrwi  which  is  so  difficult  to  understand  that 
the  Masorets  have  noted  as  the  K'ri  n^^SJ,  which 
has  been  followed  in  the  A.  V.  "  and  I  sat,"  and 
is  also  adopted  in  the  Chaldee  and  Vulgate. 
There  is  a  variation  here  also  in  the  manu- 
scripts. The  sense,  however,  seems  flat,  and 
the  conjectural  emendation  of  Hitzig,  altering 
only  the  vowel  points,  seems  far  better,  "irWT  = 
"and  I  saw  where  they  dwelt." 

In  1  Kings  i.  18  the  A.  V.,  following  the 
present  Hebrew  text,  reads  "  and  noiv,  my  lord 
the  king,  thou  knowest  it  not;"  but  all  the 
ancient  versions  and  two  hundred  manuscripts, 
with  the  early  printed  editions,  read  nriST  in- 
stead of  nm?;i?  giving  the  needed  emphasis  on 


258  THE  ART  OF  INTEEPRETING. 

the  pronoun  wLich  the  context  seems  to  require. 
Plere  the  emendation  seems  fully  justified. 

In  Lev.  viii.  14  it  is  said  ''  Aaron  and  his 
sons  laid  their  hands,"  where  the  verb  in  the 
Hebrew  text  is  in  the  singular ;  in  verse  18  the 
same  expression  recurs,  but  the  verb  is  there  in 
the  plural.  It  is  put  in  the  plural  also  in  the 
former  case  in  the  Samaritan  and  Syriac,  and 
doubtless  was  originally  so  written. 

These  instances,  several  of  them  purposely 
chosen  as  of  small  importance  in  themselves, 
may  suffice  to  show  the  value  of  conjectural 
criticism  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. If  the  proposed  emendation  has  any 
strong  probability  in  its  favor,  it  will  almost 
always  be  found  to  have  been  already  incor- 
porated into  some  of  the  ancient  versions  or  to 
be  read  in  some  of  the  manuscripts  ;  still  this  is 
not  always  the  case.  In  general  it  may  be  said 
that  such  emendation  should  not  be  resorted  to 
unless  the  text  itself,  as  it  stands,  suggests  that  it 
is  corrupt,  and  unless  the  proposed  emendation 
is  really  required  to  remove  a  difficulty,  or  at 
least  to  give  an  obviously  better  sense.  Regard 
should  also  be  had  to  the  analogy  of  tlie  known 
corruptions  of  the  text  in  manuscrii)ts  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  same  sort  of  errors  were 
likely  to  be  committed  by  the  copyists  in  the 
one  case  as  in  the  other  —  due  allowance  being 


THE  USE  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM.      259 

made  for  the  peculiarities  of  the  Hebrew  letters. 
The  similarities  between  some  of  those  letters  in 
form  has  doubtless  been  an  important  factor  in 
the  variation  of  the  text ;  but  this  can  apply 
only  to  corruptions  introduced  since  the  adoj)- 
tion  of  those  letters,  which  was  probably  at 
the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity.  Investi- 
gation is  needed  in  regard  to  the  forms  of  let- 
ters in  earlier  use,  and  the  errors  which  may 
have  been  introduced  by  their  means. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE   INTERPRETER   AT   HIS   WORK. 

Supposing  the  interpreter  to  be  prepared  for 
his  work,  and  to  know  what  to  do  in  order  com- 
pletely and  truly  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  his 
text,  it  is  well  to  point  out  the  actual  process  he 
should  go  through  in  his  interpretation.  This 
must  vary  somewhat  with  the  character  of  the 
passage  he  has  taken  in  hand,  but  certain  things 
are  common  to  them  all.  Among  these  we  place, 
first,  earnest  prayer  that  he  may  be  guided 
aright,  and  may  be  led  to  a  true  exposition  of 
God's  word,  such  as  shall  bring  out  neither  more 
nor  less  nor  otherwise  than  the  inspiring  Spirit 
meant  to  teach.  We  place  this  first  on  any  pos- 
sible view  that  may  be  taken  of  the  nature  and 
effect  of  prayer.  If  one  cannot  rise  above  its 
subjective  effect,  yet  this  subjective  effect  is 
most  important  in  impressing  upon  the  inter- 
preter the  solemnity  of  the  work  before  him,  and 
the  necessity  of  bringing  to  it  a  fair  mind,  and 
of  dealing  truly  and  honestly  with  the  language 
he  seeks  to  explain.  It  reminds  him  of  tlie 
necessity  of  calling  to  his  aid  every  available 


THE  INTEBPEETEE  AT  HIS   WOEK.     261 

help,,  and  doing  what  he  has  to  do  thoroughly 
and  in  the  fear  of  God.  But  no  one  who  has 
the  general  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  required 
in  his  preparation,  and  confidence  in  them  as 
the  word  of  God,  can  acquiesce  in  so  low  a  view 
of  the  efficacy  of  prayer.  He  must  believe  that 
in  answer  to  his  request  for  guidance  he  will 
be  rewarded  with  something  more  than  a  merely 
subjective  effect.  It  is  not,  indeed,  to  be  im- 
agined that  every  one  who  asks  to  be  taught 
the  true  meaning  of  the  Divine  word,  will  in 
consequence  be  immediately^  guided  to  an  in- 
fallible interpretation  of  every  difficult  passage ; 
for  then  it  would  be  impossible  that  earnest 
Christian  commentators  should  differ  in  their 
explanations.  Prejudice  and  imperfect  informa- 
tion, and  all  human  obstacles  to  a  right  under- 
standing of  the  text  render  this  impossible.  But 
it  is  to  be  expected  that  in  answer  to  the  hearty 
prayer  for  guidance  an  influence  will  be  exerted 
upon  the  interpreter  to  lead  him  in  the  right 
way,  and  that,  however  be  may  sometimes,  per- 
haps often,  by  his  own  fault  prevent  that  in- 
fluence from  having  its  legitimate  control,  it  will 
be  a  true  factor  in  his  work,  leading  him  to- 
wards the  truth,  ever  more  and  more  powerfully 
as  he  accustoms  himself  to  be  controlled  by  its 
guidance. 

This,  then,  is  to  be  considered  as  always  the 


262  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

first  act  of  the  interpreter ;  and  this,  if  it  be  a 
true  act  of  the  spirit,  necessarily  involves  some- 
thing at  least  of  those  various  personal  qualifica- 
tions which  have  already  been  discussed. 

The  next  act  must  be  a  more  or  less  uncon- 
scious, but  nevertheless  a  very  real,  one,  —  the 
bringing  to  bear  upon  the  particular  point  to  be 
considered  a  general  knowledge  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Sometimes  this  may  require  a  little  period 
of  definite  thought  and  reflection  ;  but  usually  it 
will  be  the  spontaneous  and  scarcely  conscious 
action  of  the  mind  of  the  well  furnished  inter- 
preter. Still,  however  familiar  one  may  be  with 
the  holy  volume,  there  will  often  be  details  of 
history  or  of  prophecy,  of  legislation  or  of  poetry 
which  have  a  bearing  upon  the  point  to  be  con- 
sidered, and  which  the  interpreter  should  make 
sure  that  he  has  rightly  in  his  mind  before  pro- 
ceeding further.  Is  he  treating,  e.  g.^  oil  Cor. 
X.  2,  which  speaks  of  the  Israelites  as  "  all  bap- 
tized unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea?" 
Let  him  be  sure  that  he  is  thoroughly  familiar 
with  all  the  historical  circumstances  connected 
with  the  cloud  and  with  the  passage  of  the  sea, 
and  if  his  recollection  is  in  any  respect  dim  or 
uncertain,  let  him  revive  his  knowledge  of  the 
history  before  going  further.  But  a  general 
knowledge  of  Scripture  is  of  still  more  impor- 
tance in  its  control  over  the  character  of  the  in- 


THE  INTEBPBETER  AT  HIS   WORK.     263 

terpretation  than  in  its  bearing  upon  particular 
facts  which  may  be  mentioned  ;  and  this,  as  re- 
peatedly urged,  must  be  already  in  the  mind  of 
the  interpreter  exerting  over  him  an  influence 
which  may  not  always  be  consciously  recognized 
at  the  moment. 

He  has  next  to  consider  the  particular  book 
in  which  his  passage  occurs  ;  its  character  and 
general  purpose,  the  period  when  it  was  written, 
the  person  by  whom  it  was  written,  and  the  peo- 
ple for  whom  it  was  primarily  intended.  This 
will  bring  before  him  not  only  the  human  mould 
in  which  the  Divine  truth  has  been  cast  in  this 
particular  case ;  but  will  also  show  whatever 
there  may  have  been  in  the  time  and  the  circum- 
stances to  limit  such  full  and  clear  expressions 
of  Divine  truth  as  occur  elsewhere.  It  is  im- 
portant always  to  bear  in  mind  the  progressive 
character  of  revelation,  advancing  gradually  in 
the  fullness  of  its  declaration  of  truth  as  men 
were  educated  to  bear  it  by  means  of  its  own 
declarations  given  less  perfectly  in  the  earlier 
times  of  spiritual  darkness.  Hence  the  position 
of  any  book  in  the  line  of  a  progressive  revela- 
tion must  always  be  an  important  element  in  its 
interpretation.  This  is  true  not  only  of  great 
intervals  of  time,  but  even  of  very  short  periods 
when  those  periods  have  been  times  of  great 
advance  in  religious  knowledf^e.     Thus  the  Gos- 


264  THE  ART  OF  INTEBPEETING. 

pels  and  the  Epistles  are  separated  from  each 
other  by  the  sacrifice  of  Calvary,  the  resurrec- 
tion and  ascension,  and  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
It  would  be  manifestly  improper  to  expect  the 
same  explicitness  of  doctrinal  teaching  in  what 
went  before  as  in  what  came  after  these  events. 
Take,  as  a  single  illustration,  the  declaration  of 
our  Lord  on  His  last  visit  to  the  temple  when 
"  certain  Greeks "  sought  an  interview  with 
Him  :  "  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will 
draw  all  men  unto  me"  (John  xii.  32).  These 
words,  as  they  stand,  are  certainly  somewhat 
dim  and  enigmatical.  They  evidently  hint  at 
what  could  not  then  be  fully  told,  and  they  are 
to  be  interpreted  in  view  of  the  necessary  re- 
straint which  then  existed,  and  prevented  a  full 
and  explicit  teaching  of  all  that  was  meant  to  be 
conveyed.  Compare  with  it  the  same  teaching 
at  a  later  date :  It  seemed  good  "  that  in  Him 
should  all  fulness  dwell :  and  having  made  peace 
through  the  blood  of  His  cross,  by  Him  to  rec- 
oncile all  things  unto  Himself ;  by  Him,  I  say, 
whether  they  be  things  in  earth,  or  things  in 
heaven  "  (Col.  i.  19,  20). 

The  personality  of  the  writer  and  the  circum- 
stances under  which  he  wrote  are  sometimes 
obviously  of  great  importance  to  the  right  under- 
standing of  his  writing.  Paul's  glowing  con- 
fidence, "  I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  I  have 


THE  INTEEPEETEB  AT  HIS   WORK.     265 

finished  my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith  :  hence- 
forth there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  right- 
eousness "  (2  Tim.  iv.  7,  8),  would  have  been 
out  of  place  at  an  earlier  period  of  his  life  than 
when  the  time  'of  his  departure  was  at  hand ; 
and  the  interpreter  needs  to  associate  it  very 
intimately  with  that  time,  that  he  may  not  leave 
it  to  be  understood  as  a  fitting  expression  for 
the  ordinary  Christian  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
life.  Jeremiah's  cursing  of  the  day  of  his  birth 
(Jer.  XX.  14-18),  and  Elijah's  prayer  that  he 
might  die  (1  Kings  xix.  4)  are  to  be  treated  in 
connection  with  the  whole  lives  and  with  the  cir- 
cumstances of  those  prophets  at  the  time,  and  it 
is  also  only  in  view  of  these  that  the  Divine 
dealing  with  them  in  reply  can  be  properly  un- 
derstood. 

When  the  writer  cannot  be  certainly  known, 
as  in  the  case  of  several  of  the  historical  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  yet  from  the  book  as  a 
whole  enough  can  be  gathered  of  his  character 
and  purposes  to  aid  materially  in  the  under- 
standing of  particular  passages  in  his  writing. 
And  in  the  New  Testament,  also,  there  is  one 
Epistle  —  that  to  the  Hebrews  —  of  which  we 
may  not  be  able  to  determine  the  author  ;  but 
we  may  know  certainly  that  he  was  a  Christian 
Jew,  seeking  to  convince  his  fellow  Jews,  on  the 
ground  of  their  ov;n  Scriptures,  of  the  temporary 


266  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING, 

character  of  their  dispensation  and  of  its  being 
superseded  by  the  greatly  superior  dispensation 
of  the  Gospel.  These  facts  enable  us  to  inter- 
pret readily  and  without  hesitation  several  pas- 
sages (such,  e.  (/.,  as  vii.  3)  which,  if  they  stood 
by  themselves,  might  seem  either  obscure  or 
capable  of  bearing  quite  a  different  sense. 

The  interpreter  will  also  more  or  less  uncon- 
sciously bring  to  bear  upon  the  passage  before 
him  his  general  knowledge  of  geography,  of  his- 
tory, of  archaeology,  and  of  science.  If  the  text 
stands  in  a  special  relation  to  any  of  these,  in 
matters  in  which  his  knowledge  is  not  altogether 
clear,  he  needs  to  look  up  such  points  before 
proceeding  further.  A  matter  of  mere  detail, 
which  easily  escapes  from  the  memory,  is  easily 
ascertained  ;  but  if  more  than  this  is  required, 
the  labor  of  informing  himself  will  soon  con- 
vince the  student  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  a 
full  preparation  in  such  matters  before  taking 
in  hand  the  work  of  interpretation.  At  all 
events  this  must  be  done,  and  thoroughly  done, 
before  any  satisfactory  result  can  be  expected. 
Many  grievous  slips  of  even  famous  commenta- 
tors might  be  pointed  out  as  warning  examples 
of  its  neglect.  For  such  neglect  there  is  far 
less  excuse  now,  when  the  means  of  acquiring 
information  have  been  so  greatly  multiplied, 
than  there  was  a  few  generations  ago.    It  is  em- 


THE  INTERPRETER  AT  HIS   WORK.     267 

inently  necessary  that  tlie  interpreter  in  these 
respects  should  be,  in  the  current  phraseology  of 
the  day,  "  abreast  of  his  time." 

All  that  has  thus  far  been  spoken  of  may  be 
considered  as  in  some  sense  preliminary  work, 
and  is  simply  bringing  to  bear  upon  a  particular 
passage  what  has  already  been  said  of  the  prep- 
aration and  work  of  the  interpreter  in  general. 
Now  he  must  look  to  his  text.  If  in  the  Greek, 
he  must  examine  it  in  a  critical  edition,  and  if 
he  finds  the  authorities  for  it  clear,  he  can  then 
accej)t  it  at  once  as  the  true  text  on  which  he  is 
to  comment.  If  he  find  the  authorities  pretty 
evenly  balanced,  and  the  critical  editors  divided 
in  their  judgment,  he  must  then  exercise  his 
own  judgment,  either  coming  to  a  positive  con- 
clusion, or  accepting  the  alternative  readings  as 
having  each  a  fair  claim  to  acceptance.  It  is 
very  seldom  that  he  will  be  brought  to  this 
dilemma;  but  when  it  occurs,  he  must  accept 
the  facts  as  they  are,  and  not  as  he  might  like 
to  have  them.  In  the  Old  Testament  he  will 
always  do  w^ell  to  compare  the  ancient  versions, 
but  he  cannot  accept  their  authority  as  either 
positively  establishing,  or  positively  correcting, 
the  text  as  it  stands.  They  only  constitute  a 
reason  for  further  inquiry,  and  sometimes  give  a 
prima  facie  presumption  on  the  one  side  or  the 
other,  and  this  presumption  is  to  be  increased  or 


268  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

diminished  by  the  general  knowledge  the  inter- 
preter has  already  brought  to  his  work.  Quite 
commonly,  however,  the  reasons,  if  any  exist, 
for  doubting  the  accuracy  of  the  received  He- 
brew text  will  only  appear  on  a  close  and  careful 
examination  of  the  text  itself  in  the  course  of  its 
interpretation. 

The  context,  remote  and  immediate,  is  the 
next  thing  to  come  under  consideration.  Only 
in  such  peculiar  books  as  parts  of  the  Proverbs, 
where  each  verse  in  some  sort  stands  by  itself,  is 
it  possible  to  understand  rightly  any  sentence 
out  of  the  connection  in  which  it  stands  ;  and 
even  these  different  and  seemingly  contradictory 
proverbs  are  pur23osely  so  placed  that  they  may 
be  seen  to  be  the  complementary  parts  of  the 
same  truth  (see,  e.  g.^  Pro  v.  xxvi.  4,  5).  Of  all 
single  points  in  interpretation  the  consideration 
of  the  context  is  perhaps  the  most  important. 
The  strange  conceit  of  Archbishop  Trench  and 
others  that  Barabbas  was  the  popular  hero  of  a 
Jewish  sedition  against  the  Romans  was  founded 
partly  on  a  mistaken  idea  of  the  word  Xya-rri^  ^  in 
John  xviii.  40  (cf.  Matt,  xxvii.  44 ;  John  x.  1, 
8,  etc.),  and  partly  on  a  misapprehension  of  the 
words  in  which  he  is  described  by  the  other 
Evangelists  (Matt,  xxvii.  16 ;  Mark  xv.  7 ; 
Luke  xxiii.  19).     It  is  quite  ingeniously  wrought 

1  See  John  x.  1,  S,  and  the  Lexicons. 


THE  INTEEPEETEB  AT  HIS   WORE.     269 

out,^  but  could  never  have  been  entertained  for 
a  moment  had  it  been  remembered  that  Pilate 
was  seeking  earnestly  to  release  Jesus,  and 
could  not,  therefore,  have  proj^osed  as  an  alter- 
native to  the  Jews  the  release  of  any  one  whom 
they  desired  to  save.  The  whole  circumstances 
of  the  narrative  require  that  he  should  have 
proposed  to  them  as  obnoxious  a  person  as  he 
could. 

After  a  due  study  first  of  the  general,  then 
of  the  immediate  context,  must  come  the  gram- 
matical construction,  and  finally  the  examina- 
tion of  the  particular  words  used.  In  regard  to 
both  these  last  points  care  must  be  taken  to 
avoid  the  constraint  of  excessive  attention  to 
minutiae.  Minute  points  of  grammar  are  in- 
deed often  important,  and  rightly  determine  the 
true  meaning  where  there  is  reason  to  suppose 
that  the  writer  used  them  intentionally.  But  it 
is  not  the  habit  of  popular  writers  in  any  lan- 
guage to  be  always  closely  bound  by  grammati- 
cal rules  when  their  attention  is  not  given  to  the 
precise  force  of  words.  This  may  be  illustrated 
b}^  an  example  in  our  own  language.  A  very 
common  provincialism  is  in  the  use  of  will  for 
shall,  yet  no  one  would  think  of  maintaining 
that  the  provincial  writer  meant  to  imply  an 

1  Trench,  Studies  in  the  Gospels,  pp.  293-297 ;  also  Syno- 
nyms of  the  N.  Test.,  s.  v.  At^ottjs. 


270  THE  ART  OF  INTEEPBETING. 

intention  whenever  he  used  the  word  will  in  the 
wrong  place.  The  human  authors  of  Scripture 
were,  for  the  most  part,  popular  writers,  and  it 
is  folly  to  undertake  to  maintain  that  their  lan- 
guage is  always  nicely  grammatical.  A  fair 
consideration  of  the  use  of  the  prepositions  et? 
and  ev,  and  of  the  particles  Iva  and  on,  is  alone 
sufficient  to  dispel  such  an  idea.  At  the  same 
time  when  an  author  wishes  to  emphasize  an 
idea,  he  will  naturally  do  it  grammatically. 
The  want  of  grammatical  accuracy  generally 
arises  not  from  want  of  knowledge,  but  from 
want  of  care  and  attention  to  minutiae.  Gram- 
matical construction,  therefore,  both  in  Hebrew 
and  Greek,  must  always  remain  one  of  the  essen- 
tial elements  of  correct  interpretation  ;  only  it  is 
not  to  be  pushed  too  far,  and,  where  no  especial 
emphasis  was  placed  upon  it  by  the  writer,  be 
made  to  override  the  teachings  of  the  context  or 
the  analogy  of  Scripture. 

Much  the  same  things  may  be  said,  but  still 
more  strongly,  of  the  study  of  the  meaning  of 
particular  words.  This  may  in  the  first  place 
be  ascertained  by  the  use  of  the  lexicons,  often- 
times with  exactness.  But  the  makers  of  lexi- 
cons are  men,  and  liable  to  the  same  errors  and 
prejudices  with  other  men.  In  every  important 
place  the  student  must  make  for  himself  an  in- 
dependent determination  of  the  meaning  of  the 


THE  INTERPEETER  AT  HIS   WORK.     271 

words  on  which  the  sense  turns.  The  chief 
means  to  be  used  for  this  purpose  is  an  exami- 
nation of  the  usage.  In  words  of  frequent 
occurrence  the  result  will  ordinarily  be  conclu- 
sive ;  yet  even  then,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
writers  then,  as  now,  occasionally  employed  a 
word  in  a  peculiar  sense,  of  which,  in  a  limited 
literature,  it  might  be  hard  to  find  another  in- 
stance. A  vulgar  sense  of  a  word,  too,  may  occa- 
sionally find  its  place  in  writings  from  which  it 
is  ordinarily  excluded.  To  recur  again  to  an 
English  illustration :  the  word  met  is  common 
in  vulgar  use,  in  some  parts  of  the  country,  for 
overtook.  It  would  be  unsafe  to  infer  from  a 
newspaper  account  of  the  meeting  of  two  vessels 
at  sea  that  they  were  sailing  in  opposite  direc- 
tions, although  such  is  unquestionably  the  force 
of  the  word  which  is  observed  in  all  careful 
writing.  Usage,  however,  is  the  paramount  law 
for  the  determination  of  the  meaning  of  words, 
and  only  apparently  fails  when  there  is  reall}^  a 
failure  in  correctly  ascertaining  it.  In  case  the 
word  is  a  common  one  in  Scripture,  especially 
with  the  particular  writer  in  question,  only  very 
cogent  reasons  can  justify  the  supposition  of  its 
use  in  a  peculiar  sense.  Thus  v6^o^  (with  or 
without  the  article)  is  used  with  great  frequency 
of  the  divinely  given  law  of  the  old  dispensation, 
and  sometimes,  by  a  natural  modification  of  that 


^72  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

law  as  written,  of  tlie  books,  whether  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch only  or  of  the  whole  Old  Testament,  in 
which  it  is  contained.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to 
find  a  word  with  its  sense  more  distinctly  fixed 
by  a  large  number  of  definite  instances  of  its 
use.  Yet  a  very  few  times  (as  Rom.  vii.  23,  25  ; 
viii.  2 ;  and  especially  iii.  27,  Sta  ttolov  v6[x.ov  ;  roiv 

epyoiv ;  ovxh  aXXa  Sta  vofxov  Trto-rew?)  it  is  USed  in  an 

absolute  and  general  sense  of  the  law  of  God 
laying  claim  to  universal  obedience.  This  sense 
is  peculiar,  infrequent,  and  opposed  to  the  great 
mass  of  instances  of  its  use,  but  is  nevertheless 
perfectly  well  established  by  the  context  and 
scope  of  the  argument. 

When  New  Testament  usage  is  limited,  the 
determination  of  the  meaning  of  a  word  can 
frequently  be  aided  by  a  comparison  with  the 
use  of  the  same  word  in  the  Septuagint,  always 
remembering  the  great  advance  in  revelation 
from  the  one  to  the  other,  and  the  consequent 
necessity  of  using  some  terms  in  a  higher  sense 
and  others  in  a  new  sense  which  the  introduc- 
tion of  Christianity  occasioned.  When  the 
word  is  a  Hebrew  one,  light  may  be  thrown 
upon  its  meaning  oftentimes  by  the  Greek  word 
corresponding  to  it  in  the  New  Testament,  or,  if 
it  does  not  happen  to  be  used  there,  by  the  word 
which  translates  it  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the 
other  ancient  versions,  especially  in  the  Chaldee 
Targums.      These   helps  are   most   apt  to   fail 


THE  INTEEPBETER  AT  HIS   WORE.     273 

precisely  where  tliey  are  most  needed,  in  the 
case  of  very  unusual  words,  and  words  a7ra$ 
Xeyofxeva,  because  here  the  versions  are  apt  either 
to  transfer  the  Hebrew  term  bodily  into  their 
own  text  or  else  to  avoid  it  altogether.  Still 
material  help  can  often  be  obtained  in  this  way, 
though  it  must  always  be  used  with  the  recollec- 
tion that  the  ancient  translator,  whatever  special 
advantages  he  may  have  had,  yet  can  give  no 
authoritative  translation  beyond  the  exercise  of 
his  own  judgment  in  the  circumstances  and  at 
the  time  when  he  wrote.  The  translation  of 
Jerome,  as  has  been  remarked,  was  made  under 
exceptional  advantages  of  learning,  conscien- 
tiousness, and  thorough  familiarity  with  Jew- 
ish tradition,  and  is  therefore  of  peculiar  value 
in  this  respect  to  the  interpreter.  When  these 
means  of  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  a  word 
fail,  there  is  still  a  resort  to  a  more  uncertain, 
but  still  valuable,  kind  of  evidence,  in  the  use  of 
the  term  in  the  cognate  languages.  It  is  true 
that  a  word  in  passing  down  the  lines  of  even 
closely  affiliated  languages  may  come  to  have 
widely  different  significations,  as,  e.  g.,  the  adjec- 
tives hell  or  hold  in  German  from  the  same 
roots  as  the  nouns  of  the  same  form  in  English, 
or  the  verbs  hekommen  and  become.  Still,  when 
a  word  is  seen  to  have  substantially  the  same 
sense  in  several  different  branches  of  a  linguis- 
tic family,  the  presumption  is  strong  that  it  wil] 


274  THE  ABT  OF  INTERPRETING, 

bear  a  like  sense  in  the  one  under  consideration. 
Of  course  the  Chaldee  and  the  Syriac,  as  the 
most  closely  related  branches  of  the  Semitic 
family,  are  most  important  for  their  illustration 
of  the  meaning  of  Hebrew  words.  Et}Tnology 
is  another  important,  but  sometimes  deceptive, 
source  of  information ;  for  the  derivative  mean- 
ings of  words  are  sometimes  strangely  unlike 
their  primary  sense,  as  in  the  notorious  case  of 
the  English  word  means.  Each  one  of  these 
several  sources,  however,  contributes  its  quota  of 
probability,  and  a  judicious  use  of  them  all  will 
generally  determine  the  point  with  sufficient  cer- 
tainty; for  it  is  seldom  that  a  word  is  at  the 
same  time  very  rare  and  very  important. 

It  not  infrequently  happens  that  a  single  word 
of  the  original  is  not  always  expressed  by  the 
same  word  in  a  translation.  When  this  is  not 
due  to  distinct  senses  of  the  original  word  and 
occurs  with  uniformity  in  different  translations, 
we  are  naturally  led  to  look  in  the  original  for 
some  shade  of  meanino:  which  cannot  be  so 
exactly  expressed  by  any  single  word  in  the  lan- 
guages of  the  translations.  Thus  the  very  com- 
mon word  "^n"^  is  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  (exclud- 
ing many  peculiar  and  accidental  translations) 
by  more  than  sixty  different  terms,  and  in  the 
Septuagint  (besides  its  combinations  with  other 
words)  by  about  forty,  and  by  as  many  in  the 
Vulgate.    It  is  obvious,  after  making  all  possible 


THE  INTERPRETER  AT  HIS   WORK.     275 

allowance  for  uncertainty  of  translation,  that 
this  must  be  a  word  in  the  Hebrew  of  such 
broad  and  general  signification  that  it  cannot 
be  sufficiently  rendered  by  any  single  term  in 
the  other  languages. 

On  the  other  hand,  many  different  words  in 
the  original  are  sometimes  represented  b}'"  a 
single  term  in  the  translation.  Thus  the  Eng- 
lish lion  is  used  to  translate  six  different  words 
in  the  Hebrew ;  and  all  those  words,  though  not 
with  the  same  uniformity,  are  rendered  by  the 
Greek  Xiojv  and  the  Latin  leo.  Here  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  Hebrew  recognized  some  distinc- 
tion in  the  animals,  which  was  no  longer  familiar 
to  the  Septuagint  translators,  or  else  which  they 
had  no  terms  to  express.  This  fact  may  throw 
light  upon  several  passages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  which  the  lion  is  mentioned. 

One  other  point  must  be  considered  before 
leaving  this  part  of  our  subject  altogether.  It 
sometimes  lia2)pens  that  a  word  is  used  in  the 
New  Testament  in  a  different  sense  from  that 
whicb  it  bears  in  classic  Greek,  and  yet  not  with 
such  frequency  that  it  is  possible  to  establish  its 
New  Testament  meaning  on  as  broad  a  basis  as 
might  be  desirable.  In  such  cases  the  usage  of 
the  Septuagint  becomes  of  great  importance ; 
for  it  not  only  offers  the  opportunity  for  a  larger 
induction,  but  also  furnishes  a  sufficient  reason 
why  the  New  Testament  writers   should  have 


276  THE  ART  OF  INTERPRETING. 

used  a  word  in  a  different  sense  from  that  which 
it  bears  in  ordinary  Greek.  A  single  instance 
must  suffice.  The  word  XPVH-"-'^^^^  originally 
meant  in  classic  Greek  to  do  or  to  carry  on 
business  of  any  kind,  but  from  the  third  cen- 
tury B.  c,  it  came  to  have  the  sense  to  take  and 
hear  a  name  or  title.  It  is  possible  that  in  one 
or  two  instances  in  the  Septuagint,  and  in  the 
New  Testament  it  is  used  in  one  or  other  of 
these  meanings  (the  former  in  1  Kings  xviii.  27, 
the  latter  in  Rom.  vii.  3)  ;  but  in  all  other  of 
the  nine  instances  of  its  use  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  of  the  ten  in  the  Septuagint,  it  cer- 
tainly refers  to  a  Divine  command  or  direction, 
and  probably  also  in  these  cases.  The  same  may 
be  said  also  of  the  derivative  word  xP^/^ciTt<r/>ios 
in  the  three  instances  of  its  occurrence.  The 
Scriptural  sense  of  the  word  is  therefore  com- 
pletely established,  and  in  the  A.  V.  it  is  fre- 
quently translated  by  "  warned  of  God "  or 
equivalent  expressions  (Matt.  ii.  12,  22 ;  Luke 
ii.  26  ;  Acts  x.  22  ;  Heb.  viii.  5,  xi.  7).  This 
sense  becomes  of  especial  interest  in  its  bearing 
upon  the  meaning  of  Acts  xi.  26,  which,  accord- 
ing to  this  supposition  might  be  translated : 
"  The  Apostles  taught  much  people,  and  by 
Divine  direction  called  the  disciples  Christians 
first  in  Antioch."  ^ 

^  Vide  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Literature  and 
Exegesis,  1880,  pp.  14,  15. 


THE  INTERPRETER  AT  HIS   WORE.     277 

When  the  interpreter  has  completed  these 
several  processes  of  his  work,  it  remains  that  he 
should  consider  his  result  as  a  whole.  It  often 
happens  in  any  work,  mechanical  or  intellectual, 
that  in  the  process  of  elaborating  the  details, 
and  while  the  attention  is  fixed  upon  them,  a 
certain  distortion  of  parts  will  occur  which  is 
not  observed  until  the  result  is  reviewed  as  a 
whole.  Such  a  review  is  therefore  never  to  be 
omitted,  and  it  will  be  of  more  value  if  it  can  be 
made  at  some  interval  from  the  previous  work. 
The  interpreter  has  in  this  simply  to  consider 
the  results  at  which  he  has  arrived,  and  to  see 
if,  apart  entirely  from  the  process  by  which  they 
were  reached,  they  appear  in  themselves  prob- 
able. If  not,  he  must  go  over  his  work  again 
with  the  purpose  of  discovering  where  he  has 
exaggerated,  or  has  laid  too  little  stress  upon  his 
details.  But  if  he  has  been  conscientious  in  his 
process  throughout,  and  has  exercised  common 
sense  at  each  point,  the  result  may  be  expected  to 
commend  itself  to  his  own  and  to  other  minds, 
and  the  review  will  confirm  his  confidence  in 
his  work.  He  may  reasonably  trust  that  he 
has  been  enabled  to  bring  out  truly  the  "  mind 
of  the  Spirit,"  and  may  have  good  hope  that  his 
work  will  redound  to  the  glory  of  his  Master. 


INDEX. 


Abiathar,  High  Priest  in  the  time 
of  David,  78. 

Abraham,  payment  of  tithes  by,  39  ; 
promise  to,  40 ;  nature  of  the 
promise  to,  40 ;  his  deceit  not 
commended,  44 ;  definite  secular 
history  begun  in  his  time,  94. 

Absalom,  the  rebellious  i)lans  of,  4. 

Ahimelech,  son  of  Abiathar,  78. 

Amalekites,  the  destruction  of,  48. 

Antiquity,  manuscripts  of,  4. 

Apostles,  letters  written  by  the,  6. 

Aquila,  translation  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament by,  126 ;  character  of  his 
translation,  12G. 

Aramaic,  a  dialect  used  by  the 
Apostles,  122 ;  probably  spoken 
by  Jesus,  122. 

Arcliaeology,  in  general,  101-106 ;  as 
bearing  on  interpretation  of  the 
Bible,  209  ;  Chaldean,  209  ;  Egyp- 
tian, 209 ;  of  various  countries, 
209. 

Argument,  flaw  in  the,  39. 

Augustine,  liis  theory  of  spontaneous 
generation,  15  ;  his  exhortation  to 
Christians,  109. 

Babylon,  value  of  its  inscriptions, 
93  ;  the  inscriptions  of,  104. 

Barabbas,  why  considered  a  popular 
hero,  268. 

Bethesda,  the  story  of  the  pool  of, 
224 ;  archaeological  investigation 
of  the  pool  of,  225  ;  virtue  attrib- 
uted to  the  pool  of,  225. 

Bethlehem,  situation  of,  189 ;  the 
birthplace  of  Christ,  190 ;  dan- 
gers surrounding  the  shepherds 
of,  190. 

Bible,  The,  inspiration  of,  1  to  73  ; 
what  is  essential  to  its  interpreta- 
tion, 1  ;  nature  and  character  of 
its  books,  1 ;  leading  Christian 
views  of,  2  ;  the  Divine  and  liuman 
element  in,  2 ;  errors  of  the  hu- 
man element  of,  3  ;   the  contra- 


dictory statements  of  Jewish  his- 
tory in,  4,  5 ;  extreme  theory  of 
verbal  inspiration  untenable,  5; 
divine  element  in,  6 ;  limitation 
of  the  divine  element  of,  8  ;  limi- 
tation of  the  human  element  of, 
8  ;  the  meaning  of  error  in,  9  ;  al- 
leged scientific  errors  in  the  Old 
Testament,  11,  12,  13 ;  its  pur- 
pose not  to  teach  natural  science, 
19,  20 ;  scientific  errors  in,  21  ; 
another  class  of  errors  in,  26 ; 
technical  errors  in,  28,  29;  ap- 
parent contradictions  in  ex- 
plained, 30-36 ;  alleged  errors  of 
reasoning  in,  37  -  43  ;  historical 
facts  in,  44  ;  testimony  of  Christ 
to  the  truth  of,  60,  61 ;  Apo.stles' 
appeal  to  the  authority  of,  61  ; 
thought  and  study  required  for 
the  exegesis  of,  63 ;  known  as 
Holy,  64  ;  the  two  main  divisions 
of,  64 ;  difference  between  the 
two  parts  of,  66  ;  poetical  and  di- 
dactic books  of,  67  ;  unity  of,  71  ; 
the  Divinely  given  books  of,  71  ; 
formed  as  the  exigencies  of  the 
times  required,  91 ;  formed  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  laws  of  history, 
91  ;  the  history  of  the  chosen 
people  found  in,  92  ;  the  worldly 
man  able  to  comprehend  in  part, 
117  ;  the  harmony  between  the 
spirit  of  the  interpreter  and,  117; 
the  Holy  Spirit  inspiring  tlie  writ- 
ers of,  117  ;  tlie  work  of  a  Semitic 
people,  120 ;  the  languages  of, 
120  ;  meaning  of  the  word  hatred 
in,  229. 
Buttmami,  the  grammar  of,  235. 

Caiaphas,  trial  before,  212. 
Calf,  the  golden,  its  structure,  225. 
Canaan,  the  conquest  of,  172. 
Canaanites,  why  destroyed,  48. 
Canticles,  character  of  the,  07. 
Captives,  census  of,  4. 


280 


INDEX. 


Chaldee,  language,  68 ;  the  neces- 
sity of  knowledge  of,  121  ;  chap- 
ters written  in,  121 ;  doubts  re- 
moved by,  123. 

Chemist,  the  analysis  of  the,  166. 

Character,  apocalyptic,  66. 

Christ,  promise  to  Abraham  of,  40. 

Christians,  two  leading  views  of  tlie 
Bible  held  by,  1. 

Civilization,  influence  of  the  Bible 
in  formation  of  Cliristian,  1. 

Commentators,  how  led  into  errors, 
79. 

Composition,  human,  6. 

Contradictions,  moral,  9. 

Copernicus,  language  used  by  his 
disciples,  11. 

Copyist,  errors  of,  3. 

Creation,  the  Mosaic  account  of, 
14  ;  the  Etruscan  account  of,  IG  ; 
Chaldean  legends  of,  16 ;  general 
order  of,  17,  18 ;  why  not  scien- 
tifically described,  18. 

Cremer,  the  remarks  on  Greek 
words  by,  252. 

Criticism,  object  of  textual,  130 ; 
discussion  of  j>rinciples  of  textual, 
131 ;  great  advance  of  textual, 
132;  valuable  works  on  textual, 
137;  texts  of  New  Testament, 
data  for,  138 ;  conjectural,  148. 

Critic,  the  application  by,  4. 

Cursives,  how  designated,  132  ;  when 
used,  132. 

Dan,  the  situation  of  the  city  of ; 

185  ;    mentioned  in  a  Phoenician 

inscription,  186. 
Daniel,  book  of,  9  ;  what  is  required 

to  understand  his  prophecies,  96. 
Dante,  divine  element  in,  3. 
David,  the  influence  of  surroundings 

upon,  191  ;  the  time  of  the  out- 
lawry of,  203. 
Deborah,   an    inspired    prophetess, 

54. 
Dialect,    Aramaic,    122 ;     used    by 

Christ,  122. 
Dispensation,    The    Old,     divinely 

given,  59. 
Divine,    something    which     is,    2 ; 

Psalms  in  harmony  with  the,  6 ; 

nature   of    our   Lord,   7 ;   in  the 

Bible,  limitation  of  the,  7. 

Ecclesiastes,  discussion  found  in, 
07. 

Egypt,  its  climate  and  condition, 
88 ;  the  struggle  between  Meso- 
potamia and,  94  ;  the  struggles  of 


[      Israel  and,  95  ;  its  traditions  and 

I      monuments,     102 ;     influence     of 

j      Mosaic  legislation  upon,  102  ;  the 

Jewish    emigration   to,    102 ;     its 

I      religion  an  esoteric  monotheism, 

103 ;  position  of  women  in,  103 ; 

porch  of    Solomon's  temple    de- 

i      rived  from,  104. 

j  Ehud,  an  assassin,  56. 

Element,  limitation  of  the  human, 
I       8. 

EUicott,  the  mistakes  of,  79. 

Era,  monsters  of  the  Carboniferous, 
45. 

Errors,  undeniable,  3 ;  found  in 
text,  3  ;  found  in  the  Bible,  5 ; 
meaning  of,  9 ;  in  statement  of 
numbers,  70  ;  due  to  the  mistakes 
of  copyist,  77. 

Essenes,  doctrines  of  the,  97. 

Etymology,  an  important  source  of 
information,  274. 

Eusebius,  a  competent  critic,  136. 

Evangelists,  their  alleged  discrep- 
ancies, 30. 

Events,  deep  mystery  of  historical, 
IGl. 
1  Evidence,  tangibility  of,  6. 
j  Exegesis,  the  study  of,  166. 

Exegete,  necessary  qualifications  of 
an,  90  ;  religious  qualification  of 
an,  115  ;  proper  standpoint  of  an, 
115;  knowledge  necessary  to  an, 
120  ;  his  relation  to  textual  criti- 
cism, 129 ;  industry  essential  to, 
149 ;  should  be  an  independent 
thinker,  151 ;  judicial  habit  of 
mind  required  by,  155  ;  difficulties 
in  the  way  of,  155,  156  ;  prepara- 
tion for  his  work,  1(13,  1G4  ;  must 
fix  the  precise  meaning  of  each 
word,  246;  the  critical  examina- 
tion of  the  text  by,  2G7  ;  his  duty 
when  authorities  are  evenly  bal- 
anced, 2G7  ;  must  accept  facts  as 
they  nre,  2G7. 

Exile,  Babylonian,  4, 

Fact,  the  first,  2  ;  a  broad,  5. 
Facts,  presented  in  the  Scriptures, 

2  ;  examination  of,  2. 
Fergusson,  on  the  construction   of 

the  Temple,  240. 

Galatians,  two  cases  found  in,  40. 
Genealogy,  that  in  Matthew  merely 

a  summary,  78. 
General,   sagacity  displayed   by   a, 

159. 
Genesis,  the  cosmogony  of,  14-17  ;  a 


INDEX. 


281 


compilation  from  more  ancient 
documents,  178  ;  contains  two  ac- 
counts of  the  creation,  178;  dif- 
ferences in,  and  how  harmonized, 
179 ;  point  in,  where  fresh  narra- 
tives begin,  236. 

Geography,  ancient,  knowledge  of 
desirable,  183. 

Gesenius,  a  grammarian,  ^8. 

God,  the  word  of,  2  ;  the  promise 
of,  2;  all  things  come  from,  18; 
Old  Testament  conception  of,  22  ; 
anthropomorphic  representations 
of,  26 ;  his  absolute  essence  un- 
known, 27,  176  ;  all  spiritual  au- 
thority from,  39 ;  man's  federal 
relations  with,  48  ;  his  message  to 
Saul,  49  ;  Scripture,  the  word  of, 
71 ;  to  whom  his  gifts  are  given, 
118;  manifested  only  through  a 
mediator,  176  ;  absolute  equality 
of  men  before,  195. 

Gospels,  The,  facts  of,  5 ;  relations 
between  Jews  and  Christians  un- 
der, 43 ;  synoptical,  66. 

Griesbach,  critical  edition  of  his 
grammar,  131. 

Greek,  fine  distinctions  in,  241, 242  ; 
nse  of  aorists,  243 ;  inferences 
from  the  use  of  the  aorists,  244 ; 

Hagar,  allegory  of  Sarah  and,  42; 
name  of  Mount  Sinai,  44. 

Hebrew,  does  not  contain  the  plu- 
perfect, 33  ;  alleged  unfair  transla- 
tion of  verb  in,  80  ;  grammatical 
proprieties  of,  237  ;  how  to  deter- 
mine the  interpretation  of,  238-9  ; 
poverty  of,  in  inflections,  240 ;  re- 
marks on  tenses  in,  245  ;  double 
meaning  of  word  in,  246,  247  ;  the 
meaning  of  words  affected  by 
changing  the  letters  in,  256. 

Hebrews,  The  epistle  to,  38 ;  char- 
acter of  its  writers,  38;  subtle 
reasoning  in,  38  ;  sense  of,  how 
observed,  233. 

Hermeneutics,  principles  of,  2  ;  re- 
versing the  principles  of,  164. 

Herod,  his  character  a  factor  in  the 
narrative,  99. 

Herodotus,  the  erroneous  statement 
of,  221. 

Hezekiah,  why  punished,  200. 

History,  the  Old  Testament,  65  ;  ori- 
ental and  primitive,  65;  stand- 
point of  the  Old  Testament,  65; 
study  of,  necessary  for  the  tyro, 
165  ;  application  of,  to  general  ex- 
egesis, 192  ;  application  to  partic- 


ular passages,  196  ;  of  nations  con- 
temporary with  Israel,  106 ;  es- 
sential to  the  interpretation  of 
prophecy,  201  ;  its  bearing  on 
chronological  subjects,  204-206 ; 
examples  of  its  chronological  im- 
portance, 207,  208. 

Hitzig,  his  conjectural  emendation, 
257. 

Homer,  divine  element  in,  3. 

Infinite,  unknowable  by  the  finite, 
23  ;  not  comparable  with  the 
finite,  24. 

Inspiration,  extreme  theory  of  ver- 
bal, 5  ;  true  theory  of,  62. 

Interpretation,  system  of,  2;  two 
important  factors  of,  65;  know- 
ledge necessary  to,  68 ;  how  to 
remove  the  difficulties  of,  69; 
method  of,  73  ;  common  sense  in, 
157 ;  originality  in,  159 ;  the  fact 
to  be  recollected  in,  160. 

Interpreter,  The,  qualification  of, 
73  ;  reverence  of,  159  ;  actual  work 
of,  163  ;  work  required  of  an  igno- 
rant, 165 ;  the  best  way  for  a  fully 
prepared,  165 ;  the  actual  process 
of,  260 ;  effect  of  prayer  upon, 
260 ;  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  prayer 
necessary  to,  261 ;  general  know- 
ledge of  the  Scriptures  necessary 
to,  262  ;  historical  knowledge  nec- 
essary to,  262. 

Israel,  both  a  church  and  a  nation, 
93. 

Israelites,  why  made  the  instruments 
of  God's  judgments,  50  ;  their 
tendency  to  heathen  practices,  51 ; 
especial  favorites  of  God,  52  ;  not 
favored  for  their  own  sakes,  53 ; 
their  place  in  the  plan  of  redemp- 
tion, 54 ;  the  Messianic  hope  their 
central  thought,  76. 

Jacob,  success  of  his  deceit,  44. 

Jael,  praise  of  the  perfidy  of,  44 ; 
why  commended,  56. 

James,  truth  taught  by,  8  ;  incorrect 
inferences  from  the  epistle  of, 
248,  249 ;  Syriac  version  of,  cor- 
rect, 249. 

Jeremiah,  truth  taught  by,  8  ;  curses 
the  day  of  his  birth,  265. 

Jericho,  miracle  performed  at,  217  ; 
customs  of,  218. 

Jerome,  St.,  his  translation  the  basis 
of  the  present  Vulgate,  126 ;  his 
scholarship  unquestionable,  126; 
his  version  of  the  greatest  value, 


282 


INDEX. 


126-273 ;  he  revises  the  Vetus  La- 
tina,  134 ;  liis  exceptional  advan- 
tages, 273. 

Jerusalem,  route  from  Galilee  to, 
18S  ;  its  destruction  foretold,  202. 

Job,  Book  of,  C7. 

John,  truth  taught  by,  8  ;  of  a  priest- 
ly family,  79  ;  his  use  of  logos  pe- 
culiar to  himself,  98. 

John  Baptist,  his  reproof  of  Herod, 
98. 

John,  St.,  Gospel  of,  where  ambigu- 
ous, 231-234  ;  disputed  passages 
in  considered,  250,  251  ;  doubt- 
ful readings  in,  255;  enigmatical 
words  found  in,  2G4 ;  interpreta- 
tation  of  such  words,  264. 

Kenites,  a  neutral  nation,  54. 
Knobel,  acknowledges  the  sublimity 
of  the  Hebrew  narrative,  17. 

Language,  important  variety  of,  68  ; 
modification  of,  68  ;  Hebrew  at 
the  time  of  Christ  a  dead,  69. 

Law,  Pharisaical  interpretation  of, 
174;  of  Moses,  its  educational 
purpose,  194. 

Laws,  those  of  Moses  modified  and 
why,  85. 

Letters,  peculiarities  of  the  He- 
brew, 259  ;  investigation  of,  259 ; 

Levi,  the  scattered  tribe  of,  203. 

Literature,  in  pure  Hebrew,  69. 

Luke,  St.,  Gospel  of,  when  misinter- 
preted, 232  ;  phrase  in,  susceptible 
of  many  different  meanings,  255. 

Maccabees,  their  influence  on  the 
fortunes  of  the  Jews,  97. 

Man,  condition  of  the  natural,  116. 

Manasseh,  257. 

Manuscripts,  the  age  and  relative 
value  of,  131  ;  ancient,  of  unequal 
value,  132  ;  the  division  of,  132  ; 
the  best  not  the  oldest,  132  ; 
method  of  testing,  133 ;  date  of 
earliest,  138  ;  made  of  pap5Tusand 
parchment,  219  ;  on  parchment, 
highly  prized,  219. 

Masora,  a  compilation  begun  in  the 
sixth  century,  139 ;  nature  of  its 
contents,  139. 

Mediator,  necessity  for  a,  113. 

Melchisedec,  blessings  and  privi- 
leges given  to,  39. 

Miracles,  how  possible,  112 ;  not 
violations  of  nature's  law,  112; 
affecting  apparent  motion  of  the 
sun,  226  ;  how  explained,  226. 


Monotheism,  taught  before  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  25. 

Morality  of  the  01d"Testament,  44  ; 
its  reconciliation  with  the  Gospel 
law,  45-50. 

Moses,  his  error  regarding  the  coney, 
11 ;  description  of  camel  by,  12 ; 
not  a  comparative  anatomist,  12  ; 
revises  his  writings,  221. 

Nabunahit,  value  of  the  inscriptions 
of,  105. 

Naturalist,  the  methods  of  a  well 
instructed,  105. 

Nazareth,  its  lovely  situation,  188. 

Nebuchadnezzar,  rise  of  the  empire 
of,  96  ;  the  inscription  of,  104. 

Nile,  the  rising  of  explains  Bible 
stories,  223. 

Nineveh,  the  ruins  of,  93;  its  his- 
tory connected  with  that  of  Israel, 
96  ;  the  archaeology  of,  104. 

Onesiphorus,  speculations  regard- 
ing, 243,  244. 

Origen,  his  critical  opinion  of  the 
highest  value,  136. 

Originality,  the  true,  158;  the  false 
and  mischievous,  158. 

I  Palestine,  natural  features  of,  88; 
valuable  books  regarding,  89  ; 
home  of  the  chosen  people,  101  ; 
geological  formation  of,  223. 

Paul,  his  argument  upon  the  promise 
made  to  Abraham,  42  ;  his  char- 
acter as  an  important  element  in 
the  interpretation  of  his  writings, 
66. 

Pentateuch,  the  Samaritan  version 
of,  of  great  antiquity,  125 ;  critical 
value  of,  125. 

Peter,  denial  of  his  Master  by  the 
I  apostle,  45  ;  at  the  trial  before  Cai- 
aphas,  213,  214. 

Philistines,  thirty  thousand  char- 
iots of  the,  5. 

Pilate,  meaning  of  his  question,  97. 

Plato,  his  philosophy,  98. 

Polygamy,  why  tolerated  under  the 
old  dispensation,  58. 

Priesthood,  the  Melchisedecan,  39  ; 
Aaronic,  39  ;  Levitical,  40  ;  estab- 
lished by  God,  40. 

Promise,  primeval,  40  ;  emphasis  of, 
257. 

Prophecy,  appeal  to,  5. 

Prophet,  vision  of  the,  160. 

Psalms,  spirit  and  aspiration  of  the, 
6;  Book  of,  67. 


INDEX 


283 


Puteoli,  i-uins  of,  210  ;  landing  place 
of  Paul,  211. 

Kahab,  a  striking  instance  of  faith, 

48. 

Redeemer,  the  promised,  40  ;  salva- 
tion through  a  personal,  71. 

Revelation,  the  older,  G ;  adapted  to 
the  human  understanding,  23  ; 
possibility  of  it  assumed,  24 ;  made 
only  through  a  mediator,  24 ; 
methods  of,  25-27 ;  progressive, 
92  ;  affected  by  the  condition  of 
those  to  whom  it  was  given,  92  ; 
increasing  development  of,  193 ; 
that  made  to  Abraham,  193 ;  how 
illustrated,  227. 

Reverence,  as  a  necessary  result, 
159 ;  as  a  requirement  of  God, 
IGO ;  mistaken  forms  of,  102. 

Robinson,  Dr.,  his  "  Biblical  Re- 
searches "  valuable,  89. 

Romans,  their  method  of  reckoning 
time,  215  ;  their  method  used  by 
John,  215,  216 ;  relation  of  their 
method  to  narratives  in  tlie  fourth 
Gospel,  216,  217  ;  epistle  to,  often 
misunderstood,  180;  main  argu- 
ment in,  180. 

Sampson,  57. 

Saul,  his  journey  to  consult  the 
witch  of  Endor,  187. 

Science,  Natural,  influence  on  inter- 
pretation, 107,  108 ;  removes  diffi- 
culties, 107 ;  cannot  ignore  the 
results  of,  108  :  its  proper  limits, 
109 ;  origin  of  its  so-called  con- 
flict with  religion,  109 ;  general- 
izations of  modern,  110  ;  recog- 
nizes the  doctrine  of  immanence, 
111  ;  discretion  required  in  use  of, 
222  ;  its  relation  to  miracles,  220. 

Scribes,  the  lapsus  of,  5. 

Scriptures,  The,  truths  contained  in, 
5 ;  three  theories  contained  in,  6  ; 
unity  in  tlie  volume  of,  7  ;  adap- 
tation of,  to  the  understanding, 
8 ;  knowledge  of,  how  best  ob- 
tained, 81 ;  use  of  commentators 
on,  82  ;  individuality  of  the  writ- 
ers of,  83 ;  uncertain  authorship 
of  portions  of,  84 ;  knowledge  of 
its  geography  essential,  87  ;  im- 
portant clue  to  its  interpretation, 
113;  writers  of,  religious  men, 
1 15  ;  teachings  of,  concur  with  the 
lessons  of  life,  110;  criticism  of 
tlie  text  considered,  129 ;  applica- 
tion of  the  knowledge  of,  108, 119 ; 


numbers  variously  stated  in,  109, 
170 ;  conflicting  statements  in, 
how  reconciled,  171, 172  ;  peculiar 
sense  of  the  words  in,  249-252 ; 
writers  of  some  of  tlie  books  can- 
not be  known,  205  ;  writers  of,  not 
always  grammatical,  270  ;  use  of 
prepositions  in,  270  ;  case  of  com- 
mon words  used  in,  271. 

Seed,  Abraham  and  his,  40  ;  Biblical 
meaning  of  the  word,  40 ;  of  the 
woman,  40. 

Septuagint,  The,  its  influence  on 
the  New  Testament  writers,  102  ; 
contains  the  earliest  Greek  trans- 
lation of  the  Old  Testament,  124 ; 
unequal  accuracy  of,  124  ;  of  great 
value,  124 ;  the  work  of  the  Alex- 
andrian Jews,  141 ;  an  important 
authority  on  conflicting  readings, 
141 ;  variation  in,  142 ;  two  prin- 
cipal recensions  of  the  text  of, 
142,  143  ;  words  coined  for  use  in, 
252  ;  comparison  of  words  used  in, 
272 ;  one  word  translated  in  forty 
ways,  274  ;  treatment  of  the  word 
lion  in,  275  ;  its  usage,  when  of 
great  importance,  270. 

Serapis,  an  Egyptian  deity,  211 ;  fa- 
mous temple  of,  212. 

Shewbread,  how  offered,  174  ;  to  be 
eaten  by  the  priests  alone,  174. 

Shishak,  his  successful  expedition 
against  Rehoboam,  197  ;  first  king 
of  the  twenty-first  dynasty,  198 ; 
his  alliance  with  Jeroboam,  198. 

Slavery,  under  old  dispensation,  45. 

Sodom,  the  destruction  of,  51. 

Solomon,  horses  of,  4 ;  his  reasons 
for  marrying  the  daughter  of  Shi- 
shak, 197  ;  evils  existing  under  his 
government,  220. 

Son  of  Man,  The,  a  phrase  met  with 
in  certain  prophets,  253 ;  wliy 
chosen  as  a  title  by  our  Lord,  2,j3. 

Spirit,  The  Holy,  meaning  of  revela- 
tion from,  102. 

Stephen,  the  character  of,  32 ;  his 
knowledge  of  the  facts  he  stated 
as  compared  to  ours,  33  ;  had  good 
authority  for  his  statements,  34. 

Student,  The,  the  danger  to,  107. 

Talmud,  The,  date  of,  139;  how  com- 
posed, 140  ;  its  chief  value,  140. 

Targums,  The,  translation  of,  121  ; 
estimate  of  the  scholarslrip  of  the 
translators  of,  144  ;  paraphrastic 
translations  of,  144  ;  not  without 
critical  value,  144. 


284 


INDEX. 


Testament,  errors  found  in  the  Old 
and  New,  3  ;  faulty  morality  of 
the  Old,  4;  Old,  how  cited  iu 
the  New,  31 ;  Christ  recognized 
the  authority  of  the  Old,  G5 ;  his- 
torical narrative  of  the  Old,  65 ; 
proportion  of  history  found  in  the 
New,  G5  ;  character  of  the  history 
of  the  Old,  65 ;  character  of  the 
history  of  the  New,  (!)5  ;  influence 
of  the  Greek  language  upon  the 
New,  68  ;  Hellenistic  structure  of 
the  Old,  68;  textual  criticism  of 
the  New,  69  ;  reasons  for  consider- 
ing first  the  text  of  the  New,  130  ; 
to  what  edition  of  the  New  is  ap- 
plied the  term  Textus  Receptus, 
130  ;  manuscripts  containing  any 
part  of  the  New,  131 ;  true  char- 
acter of  the  dialect  of  the  New, 
161  ;  value  of  conjectural  criticism 
of  the  Old,  258. 

Testimony  of  ancient  documents, 
how  it  should  be  weighed,  29. 

Text,  criticism  of  the,  4  ;  settlement 
of,  69  ;  guarded  by  the  Jews,  10  ; 
the  Samaritan,  70  ;  data  for  deter- 
mining the,  131  ;  important  factor 
in  the  variation  of  the,  259. 

Theodotion,  value  of  his  translation 
of  Daniel,  126. 

Theories,  three  possible,  3 ;  human 
and  divine,  7. 

Tischendorf,  131. 

Tregelles,  his  mistakes  as  a  com- 
mentator, 79. 


Trench,  Archbishop,  his  ideas  re- 
garding redemption,  41  ;  strange 
conceit  of,  268  ;  reason  of  his  mis- 
takes, 268. 

Truth,  introduced  by  the  gospel,  5  ; 
recognized  by  all  men,  5;  its 
power  to  transform,  6 ;  full  and 
clear  expression  of  the  divine, 
263. 

Uncials,  written  in  capital  letters, 

132  ;  in  what  centuries  used,  132. 

Vedas,  70. 

Versions,   of    the   Old    Testament, 

127  ;  Arabic,  why  valuable,  127 ; 

Latin,  the  most  important,  133  ; 

description  of  the  Vetus  Latina, 

133  ;  revision  of,  134  ;  Syriac,  sec- 
ond iu  value,  135;  varieties  of, 
135  ;  Egyptian,  when  made,  135 ; 
Gothic,  of  the  fourth  century, 
135 ;  Armenian,  of  later  origui, 
135  ;  all  used  in  determining  the 
text,  135 ;  Samaritan,  the  oldest, 
140  ;  value  of  Samaritan,  140, 141 ; 
Peshito-Syriac,  135,  146. 

Voltaire,  his  theory  of  the  origin  of 

fossils,  223. 
Vulgate,  The,  257. 

West,  his  remarkable  conversion,  30. 

Writer,  The,  personality  of,  7  ;  tem- 
perament of,  7  ;  idea  of  the  times 
by,  8 ;  errors  incorporated  in  the 
Bible  by,  8 ;  free  speech  of,  9. 


Date  Due 

AfjSr  T  M 

mAf^  3^9^ 

s 

Mfi^iriAnK 

0 

a 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

BS476  .G22 

Aids  to  scripture  study. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1   1012  00049  4908 


